1951-11-06

Mr. James Sinclair (Coasl-Capilano):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Last night the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) was kind enough to put on the record a statement concerning Vatican representation which I made to both Catholic and Protestant groups last year. The hon. member did quote my statement quite accurately, but he failed to show where my statement ended and where the comments of the newspaper reporter began. In fairness to both of us, I should like to indicate that my remarks end on page 733 of Hansard with the words "chosen from non-Catholic faiths".



RAILWAY LEGISLATION


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Higgins: and1
That the name of Mr. Gillis be substituted for that of Mr. Wright, on the special committee on railway legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of an agricultural products board, to prescribe the constitution and powers of the board, to provide for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of an agricultural products board account and for payments out of the consolidated revenue fund for the buying, storing, transporting or processing of agricultural products (a payment not to be greater than the amount by which fifteen million dollars exceeds the balance of the agricultural products board account), and to provide for the salaries or other remuneration to be paid the members, officers, clerks and employees of the board.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for fhe Minister of National Revenue) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, to increase the number of governors from nine to eleven and to provide for their tenure of office: to provide for benefits from the pension fund for members of the corporation engaged full-time in the business of the corporation and their dependents; and to provide further that the Minister of Finance may grant to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of four million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the fiscal year that began on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and the sum of six million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in each of the four next following fiscal years.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I wish to direct to the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice. Is he prepared to indicate whether he will present a motion to set up a committee on defence expenditures, and if so when that motion will be introduced?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government have decided, Mr. Speaker, that I shall place on the order paper a notice of a resolution for a committee on defence expenditures, and I trust that it will be in terms which the hon. gentleman will find are in conformity with the suggestions he made to me during the conference we had in my office with the leaders of the other groups. We are doing that, although we feel it will be unrealistic to expect that the committee can make very much progress during this short session, in view of the work that the other committees, already set up and in the process of being set up, have to complete during this session. It was felt that it might

Inquiries of the Ministry be advisable to have the committee set up now with the proper terms of reference, and let it get organized and make a start on its work. This would probably save some time at the next session, when it will have to be reconstituted and can then proceed, I hope for a longer period, with the important work it will be required to do under the terms of reference. I hope to have a word with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other groups about that matter perhaps in the course of the day and to be able to place my notice on the Votes and Proceedings so that it may come before the house in due course.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the
Prime Minister has referred to a discussion which took place in his office on October 17, I would point out that the terms of reference will, of course, decide the effectiveness of the motion; and I trust that, as he has indicated, the terms of reference will embrace the type of inquiry that we had in mind. I would point out, however, that I would hope the committee will be one which will continue during each session; and therefore the sooner the committee in this case starts its activities, the more effective will be the beginning during this present session. Then in the next session it can start from there to deal with the matters that are brought before it up to the actual date of the meetings or sittings of that committee.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). In view of the serious allegation made in the house last evening by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) that soldiers from Quebec were submitted to risks and inconvenience because, and I quote the exact words he used, they
. . . are chosen for the most exposed positions in the line and the most unpleasant fatigues . . .
will the minister investigate the charge and place the result of such investigation before the house, so that, if necessary, steps can be taken by the house to clear up any such situation?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad indeed that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has asked this question and given me the earliest possible opportunity to say emphatically that there is not a word of truth


in the charges. As anyone who has served in action knows, the fortunes of battle may find one battalion in particularly difficult operations while another, in an area which was considered to have been equally hazardous, may suffer few casualties. Here in Canada all casualty lists are published in the newspapers just as soon as the next of kin have been informed. Any hon. member or anyone else for that matter, who wants to find out how many casualties are suffered by the different arms, could take the trouble, if he chose, to go through those lists and add them up.
It happens that in this case the casualties so far suffered by the three infantry battalions, the Princess Patricia's, the Royal Canadian regiment and the Royal 22nd, show that, of the three, the casualties suffered by the Royal 22nd are lighter than those suffered by the other two. Speaking as a member of this house and as the minister responsible to this house and to the people of Canada for the recruiting, training and operations of our armed forces, I cannot deprecate too strongly unsupported statements of this kind which, if they have any effect at all, can only have the effect of creating racial discord and racial disunity.
As hon. members know, it is the duty of any commanding officer to see that, as far as possible, the hazards of battle and the burdens of war fall equally on the men under his command. As far as I know, that has been the attitude taken by every Canadian commanding officer with whom I am familiar, and as long as I am here, that will be the attitude taken by every Canadian commanding officer or else he will not be a commanding officer for long.
I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is the solemn obligation of any hon. member of this house to make sure of any facts on which he bases charges of this character which cannot but affect the morale, service, recruitment and the operations of these gallant young men who are serving us in this difficult action abroad.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in view of the answer given to a question yesterday and which indicated income tax exemption of $1,000 and $2,000. Will the Minister of Finance say whether it was his intention at that time to indicate that the existing additional allowance

or additional exemption of $500 now given to taxpayers over the age of 65 years is to be withdrawn?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: That is a matter of government policy that will be considered at budget time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fraser:: That is an evasive answer. [Later:]


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Yesterday as reported at page 698 of Hansard I asked the minister this question and he gave the following answer:


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the recipient of the war
veterans allowance be entitled to the $1,000 exemption?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like that to be
recorded.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.
Is the answer still the same?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the recipient of
war veterans allowance is entitled to the same exemption under the Income Tax Act as is any other taxpayer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to put this question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). It has to do with the business of the house-in relation to two government notices of motions appearing on pages 3 and 4 of today's order paper. Does the notice of motion on page 3, paragraph 2, referring to a measure to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, refer to the measure with regard to which a resolution appears at page 4 of today's order paper? That is my first question. The second question is this: Will the resolution on page 4 be proceeded with before the resolution on page 3 in the name of the Minister of National Revenue?


Alphonse Fournier: That question concerns the setting up of the committee on radio broadcasting and the bill which is under the name of the Minister of National Revenue. I have not had occasion to see the Minister of National Revenue, who today is attending a conference with his tax collecting officers. As soon as I can discuss this matter with him I will let my good friend know what the situation is.
Combines Legislation



COMBINES LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to consider the interim report of the committee appointed to study combines legislation tabled in the House of Commons Friday, October 12, 1951; and to consider appropriate amendments to the Combines Investigation Act based thereon.
That twenty-six members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the said committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto.
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the said proposed joint committee.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is a well known saying that expectation exceeds realization. I think that is the situation we have reached today in this session of parliament, a session that in the opinion of the people was going to do something about inflation and the high cost of living. The high hopes of a month ago have fallen like the leaves of autumn and now lie buried under the cold promise of a committee of investigation. That is the point we have reached. The government appears to be in retreat. The throne speech recognizes the concern of the people and of the government over the high cost of living and promises that every suitable measure effective in counteracting inflation will be taken. There was eager anticipation on the part of the public. The press reflected that anticipation. Prior to the session and in its early stages we had news items and radio speeches forecasting action with regard to resale price maintenance. The speech from the throne intimated that legislation would be brought down. A month later the whole plan collapsed.
This afternoon I propose dealing briefly with just two or three things. I propose reemphasizing the interest of the people in this whole matter and then making some reference to the by-elections of last June, from which some useful lessons may be drawn that have a bearing on this problem, and concluding

Combines Legislation
with suggesting a course of action. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who in times past has often heard advice from me, will I am sure listen with interest. The speech from the throne was quite right in mentioning the concern of the people over the high cost of living. That concern continues. I have been examining newspapers recently to see the reflection in those papers of the concern of the people over these matters. As we all know, newspapers as a rule reflect pretty carefully the matters in which the public are most keenly interested. I hold in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune of last Thursday, and I have examined its subsequent issues for Friday and Saturday. I find that a very large amount of space on the front page of the paper is devoted to these particular problems: the high cost of living and inflation. We know that editors of newspapers tend to put on the front page those things that are of interest to the public at that particular moment. I find that in this Thursday's issue almost half of the front page of the paper is concerned with matters which, in the editor's opinion, are of immediate interest to the people of Winnipeg. The largest heading of all says:
Ottawa to open inflation probe
I shall come back to this heading in a moment or two. Then we have a heading saying:
Tariff wall blamed for Canada prices
Then another heading:
P.M. may convene consumers parley
I am sure that the people of Winnipeg read these items with a great deal of interest. There is another heading still on the front page as follows:
Spending near floor-Abbott
Then there is an article devoted to the fact that "Winnipeg is expensive by Minneapolis gauge". For this I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) must accept responsibility because it must have been his Washington shopping list that encouraged the editor of the Winnipeg Tribune to send one of his able reporters down to Minneapolis to find out what the comparison is between living in the United States and in the city of Winnipeg. I will read just one or two items so as not to burden the house. Mr. Werier, who made the investigation, said:
You often hear talk that the cost of living is much higher in the United States than in Canada.
Canadian government officials will admit wages are higher across the line but usually qualify it with the comment: "So is the cost of living."
There's no doubt that wages are much higher in Minneapolis, a city comparable to Winnipeg in economy and geographical location.
But I found that more goods can be bought at lower prices in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg.
[Mr Churchill.]
Then the editor lists the things that Werier found:
Americans haven't felt the cost of living punch the way Canadians have. They have the edge on cheaper prices and have a higher standard of living. In fields where United States prices parallel those in Canada higher wages help Americans meet them with ease.
I think that is a clear reflection of public interest. I am sure that the large heading I mentioned, "Ottawa to open inflation probe", is the one that would perhaps receive even closer attention. I notice that the dispatch says this:
Fixed price ban to be postponed
The article reads:
The cost of living has been the hottest subject for debate in parliament since the 5th session of the 21st parliament opened October 9.
Then it goes on to mention the suggested reference to a joint committee of both houses, and has this striking sentence:
That likely will mean months of study before the committee decides whether parliamentary action against price-fixing is warranted.
Therefore I imagine the people of Winnipeg have reached the conclusion from study of recent editions of the paper that not much action will be taken at the present time.
A month ago the people were led to believe that a major onslaught would be made on the cost of living, and now it appears they may expect only delay. There is no doubt about the continuing public interest in the cost of living and in inflation. They will be disappointed in the present suggestion for a committee to investigate a committee.
How far short the government is falling from meeting the expectations of the people may be seen from a glance at the by-elections of June 25. We would have had an easier time if we had had this example of procrastination. As it was, we had plenty of material. The by-elections gave the people the opportunity of expressing their views in a proper democratic fashion by their votes, the only effective way in which the average citizen can indicate his wishes. If parliament exists for the express purpose of carrying out the will of the people then their wishes as evidenced by the by-elections should be examined and acted upon.
The discontent of the people in June will be magnified by the delay that is now proposed. Some misconceptions have arisen with regard to the by-elections, and have been voiced or written about by people who were rather far-removed from the scene of action. I have read and heard that the by-elections have been interpreted as merely a protest vote against the government because of the high cost of living. There was more than that to it. There was the basic discontent owing to

the rising cost of living and a decrease in the buying power of the population. There was an equal discontent and dissatisfaction with what appears to the people to be a lack of awareness on the part of this government of how the average family lives. They think this government is remote and out of touch, and they will be more than ever convinced of it now with this wait and see policy. Women who are the greatest campaigners were quite outspoken. I think that they will be much more impressed at the present moment when the government reduces the taxes on the electrical appliances that they use in their homes than with the proposed committee superimposed upon another committee. Women state that to classify their electric appliances as luxuries was an idea that could occur only to men living a sheltered life in the cloistered halls and ivory towers of Ottawa. They would like to see cabinet ministers, not just dressed as ladies with aprons, and doing dishes-that would be too simple-but bending over old-fashioned washboards.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Good idea.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If, say the women, electric stoves, washing machines and refrigerators, these basic components of the home, are to be classed as luxuries, then let the men class as luxuries their motorcars, trucks and tractors, and the machinery they use in their occupations. Let the men go back to the horse and buggy, to the ox drawing the plow. I gathered the women were not impressed by the government at Ottawa.
I feel that, out of sympathy for their fellow-men, the members of the government should be less eager to rouse the ire of the women, because we all suffer.


Mr. Gibson:: Hell hath no fury-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Another factor that loomed large during the election campaign, and which carried the greatest weight during the last few weeks, was the people's discontent with what they considered to be the arbitrary nature of the government, the tendency to a one-party state, as well as the government's wastefulness and extravagance. They would like to see the government set an example of economy.
I have heard the statement made that in the constituency I have the honour to represent the Progressive Conservatives came out to vote while the Liberals stayed at home. I regret to report that some Progressive Conservatives stayed at home and failed to vote. They were discouraged, a little bit disheartened. They thought the odds against them were too heavy.
Combines Legislation
Actually the election was decided, as many elections are, by the independent voters, of whom there are many thousands in Winnipeg. But the unkindest cut of all, so far as this government is concerned, is that an appreciable number of avowed Liberals for the first time in their lives cast their votes against a Liberal government. They did not stay at home; they marched out to the polls and recorded their votes. I am not speaking of Liberals who have voted only once or twice in general elections; from actual knowledge I am speaking of Liberals whose experience in life extends over thirty, forty and fifty years of adult life, and who have voted in many general elections.
This did not occur by accident. One cannot explain the result of that election simply by weighing the merits of the respective candidates. My experience has been that after the election some people entertain grave doubts with regard to the defeated candidate. Or, if one wishes to explain it on that basis, how would one explain the result in the constituency of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale)? There David slew Goliath.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he mind telling me which item on the order paper he is now discussing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am discussing item No. 10. I pointed) out earlier that I was going to-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I just could not tell what my hon. friend was getting at. That was my only reason for asking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have been commenting upon the lack of awareness by members of the government with respect to the problems faced by the people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would sum up the opinions of the Liberals who voted against the government, and I do so because one good turn deserves another.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel sure they would want me to draw to the attention of the government a number of those matters which they feel have not received the attention they deserved. Perhaps I should paraphrase their remarks in order that I may keep within parliamentary usage. They said these things: The government is too powerful; it is too arbitrary; it is too much out of touch with the people; it is wasteful and extravagant; it is over-taxing the people, and it needs a sharp and salutary lesson.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the motion before the house.

Combines Legislation


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am relating my remarks to the motion before the house. After the election many people said to me that they were pleased the election turned out as it did, because now perhaps the government would sit up and take notice. I am sure those people will be shocked to learn that the government is still reclining.
What will they think of the present situation? They have been encouraged to hope for some measure of relief, when they have read the promises held out in the speech from the throne. They have been encouraged to expect action, through the promise of legislation. However, they are now faced with the prospect of further delay. Instead of action they are offered a committee to investigate a committee.


John Lambert Gibson: Read the Globe and Mail of this morning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is not normal parliamentary procedure. For long years normal procedure has been a committee of investigation followed by study by the government, and then bringing before the house legislation which is debated, studied by a committee of the house, amended or changed if necessary, and finally enacted. But this is not that type of procedure at all. I do not dismiss the possibility, although it is somewhat remote, that during the next five weeks the proposed joint committee, under heavy government pressure, may make a hasty survey of the ground that occupied the attention of the MacQuarrie committee for fifteen months. But if a joint committee does complete the survey, if it does bring in a report, and if legislation is then brought down and passed, how much farther forward are we?
I think it was the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) who mentioned the other night that the goods affected by resale price maintenance comprised only about 10 per cent of retail trade. This, then, is no major onslaught on the cost of living. It is merely nibbling at the edges, like a mouse nibbling at cheese.
It is not the function of an opposition to provide blueprints for the government. Under normal circumstances the function of an opposition is to examine and to criticize, to suggest amendments, and generally to act as a watchdog for the people. However, under certain circumstances it is necessary to make suggestions to the government. Public interest demands it. If we must have a committee, if there is bound to be delay, as so many people think, then let us attack the problem on a broad front-not in a narrow or restricted zone, as is suggested by the motion before us.

The government should accept the suggestion put forward so ably by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other evening, and should consider other suggestions worthy of careful consideration, and which have come from this side of the house. It should widen the scope of the investigation. And while the investigation is being made, let us institute some measures of economy. The people would like that.
After all, what is our task? This is a House of Commons charged with the responsibility of enacting laws for the well-being of about fourteen millions of people. When we look into the composition of our national society we see that the great majority is composed of those people below the age of fifty years. Of that group the great proportion is composed of married folk with children.
We have taken a proper interest in the position of those in the older age group, and those on pensions. But sometimes we have neglected the group in our society that is carrying on under very heavy responsibilities-and I refer to the young married folk. As I happen to know, some of them are having as difficult a time to make ends meet as are any of the people on fixed incomes.
This was summed up very well in a picture that appeared on Maclean's magazine a few weeks ago. This was the picture showing a young woman and her husband completing their shopping in a store. They show them standing in front of the cash register ready to pay the bill. The young woman has placed down on the counter the housekeeping money but at the same time is extending her left hand to her husband who is digging down in his pocket to make up the deficit in order to provide the subsidy for that housekeeping money. That is the crux of the matter; the housekeeping money in the case of many families is insufficient and too limited to meet the increased cost of living and inflation.
A great burden is resting upon young married people who are bringing up families and who must provide food and clothing for them. Everyone knows the uncanny knack, possessed by children, of growing out of clothing and shoes before their parents have recovered from the shock of paying for them. That is a problem facing many of our people and it is pressing heavily upon those who have great responsibility.
I feel, and I am sure they feel, that the present intentions of the government as indicated by this motion will not meet their problem immediately as they would like to

have it met. It is a great task for this government and for this house; we are faced with a great responsibility, but the present approach seems to me to be weak and timorous. I think it is time to be up and doing.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, after having read and considered the MacQuarrie report I decided to say a few words in this debate. After having listened to the speeches of members of the opposition I have decided that so far not one of them has confined himself to the point at issue. They have all dealt with generalities. We have been told that prices have increased, but we all know that. We have heard accusations of profiteering and exploitation in a general way, but so far no one has dealt with the specific subject matter of this resolution. The remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who has just preceded me, add weight to what I had intended to say even before I heard him. He dealt in generalities, so much so that he was asked by the Chair to return to the subject matter of the resolution.
The resolution we have before us reads:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to consider the interim report of the committee appointed to study combines legislation.
In deciding whether we will vote for or against that resolution we must first decide whether the interim report is adequate and complete, whether it is sufficient to provide a base for legislation which will create profound changes and disturbances in the business world and our economy in general. It will disturb the relationship between manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer and may have very profound repercussions. The point that I wish to make is that the MacQuarrie report contains good reasons for supporting the government's decision to refer this matter to a joint committee of the two houses.
As I said at the beginning, I have read the report and considered it carefully. Frankly, I have not yet been able to decide whether resale price maintenance is a good or bad thing. I believe it would be dangerous for the government to introduce legislation based on this report without having the matter investigated further. I have the report before me but before quoting from it I wish to state that I do not want my remarks to be taken as criticism of the gentlemen who made up that committee. They were busy men who undertook this task as a public service. I am convinced that we owe them a vote of thanks for the work they have done.
Combines Legislation
I am sure that they came fairly to the conclusions they reached, with the material at their disposal, and that is just the point to which I wish to refer.
I submit that the material at their disposal was not sufficient to arrive at a clear and convincing conclusion and that therefore the government is justified in referring the matter to a joint parliamentary committee in order that more evidence may be obtained on the matter. The most important point that the committee had to consider when studying resale price maintenance was its effect on prices. At page 23 of the report we find the following:
Although precise information is lacking, there is some evidence that resale price maintenance contributes to price stability but that the general level of prices thus stabilized is higher than it would be under competitive conditions and production more unstable.
I refer hon. members to the mention of precise information being lacking. I submit respectfully that that is a very weak basis on which to found conclusions which, as I said a minute ago, will create disturbances in the business world. If we examine the report further we find a section entitled "The committee's views", beginning at page 20, in which are summarized the arguments for and against price maintenance. At this point I wish to emphasize that I am not declaring myself either in favour of or against resale price maintenance, I am simply dealing with whether or not this matter should be referred to the committee. The remarks I am about to make when I present arguments in favour of or against are not to be taken as an expression of opinion on my part. First of all, the committee deals with the advantages of resale price maintenance at page 25 of the report as follows:
Resale price maintenance prevents two possible forms of monopolistic practices which tend to produce unreasonable retail prices namely, the use of monopoly power at the retail level and the "loss-leader" device.
Everyone realizes, and I think it has been brought out quite clearly in briefs which have been sent to hon. members, that one of the great dangers of abolishing resale price maintenance is the risk of driving the small retailer out of business. The fact that the small retailer is sure of a reasonable profit on some of the things he sells is in many cases the thing that keeps him in business. If he was not sure of a reasonable profit-and I emphasize the word "reasonable"; I am not defending unreasonable profits-very often he would be driven out of business. That is a conclusion of the report. At page 26 of the
746	HOUSE OF
Combines Legislation
report, under the section dealing with the committee's views, there is the following:
Resale price maintenance no doubt encourages the operation of more retail outlets and exerts an Influence against the concentration of economic power in the retail field.
Again, on page 27 of the report we find another conclusion favourable to resale price maintenance. It reads:
Resale price maintenance no doubt helps to protect the reputation of branded goods and facilitates advertising and sales promotion.
On the other side of the medal the committee gives these arguments against resale price maintenance. It says that it eliminates competition between retailers. I submit that that is only important in so far as it has already been found that resale price maintenance increases prices, but as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks the committee has not found that at all. It has simply said that there is some evidence and that precise information is lacking on that point. Therefore I make the point that if resale price maintenance does not increase prices it does not matter whether or not it eliminates competition between retailers. Second, they say that it helps combines between manufacturers. Their reason for saying that is this. They say that if manufacturers can make arrangements with retailers to sell at fixed prices it is easier for them to make arrangements between themselves. But to forbid resale price maintenance simply because some people put it to bad or unwarranted use is the same as forbidding the use of automobiles because some people drive them illegally, cause accidents or infringe the law while driving them. Just because a thing that is good in itself can be put to a bad use in certain cases does not justify one in deciding to condemn it. Even if we say that price maintenance might be used in some cases to do an illegal act, price fixing between manufacturers, that is no reason to ban it if in itself it is not a thing that is detrimental to the public, and if in itself it is not a thing which increases prices.
The committee also says that sometimes the enforcement of these agreements between manufacturers and retailers is unfair. Leaving aside for the moment the matter of whether or not the agreements are legal, once an agreement is made it should be lived up to by both sides. Suppose a manufacturer agrees with a retailer that he shall sell at a certain price which only gives him a reasonable profit and the retailer does not live up to that agreement: I do not think you can say that it is not fair for the manufacturer to impose certain sanctions. The only unfair thing would be for the manufacturer to impose sanctions needlessly. I cannot see where a manufacturer would have any


interest in imposing sanctions needlessly because he would simply be doing himself a disservice by cutting out an outlet for his goods.
In short, Mr. Speaker, having considered the arguments pro and con in the report, I must say that I do not find that the weight of argument is in favour of the forbidding of resale price maintenance. Really and truly I find that the weight of argument, based on the findings of the report and the committee's views, is rather in favour of resale price maintenance. Certain benefits have been shown and the harm, if any, that may result from it has not been conclusively demonstrated. Therefore I submit that the government, in presenting a resolution to the house to the effect that the matter of resale price maintenance should be referred to a joint committee, is perfectly justified, and that it is in the public interest for the matter to be referred to a joint committee where the hearings will be in public, the press will have access, arguments pro and con will be brought out, and facts that were not submitted to the MacQuarrie committee will be given the necessary publicity so that public opinion on this subject will be able to crystallize.
I should like to point out that the representations made to the MacQuarrie committee were confidential and were not given publicity. I should like to read from the letter quoted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in his speech as found at page 663 of Hansard. This is the letter that was sent out by the committee to the people who were asked to appear before it, and the passage to which I wish to refer reads:
All representations received by the committee will be treated as confidential to the committee and will not be used for purposes other than those of the committee or quoted unless permission is requested and granted.
I think a subject of this importance should be fully aired before the public, and that the best way to do so is to create a joint parliamentary committee. I should also like to say that the accusations voiced against the government of trying to delay this matter and to gain time are wholly unwarranted and unfair. I submit that if any member of the house will take the trouble to read, consider and analyse the MacQuarrie report he cannot do otherwise than come to the conclusion that the decision of the government is a wise one under the circumstances.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, as a small retailer I have been somewhat interested in this debate, and I should like to say a few words. One point which member after member has emphasized is the fact that the speech from the throne

promised concrete legislation arising out of the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), speaking over the facilities of the C.B.C. on October 16, went even further when he stated that he hoped to introduce such legislation without delay.
The resolution now before us makes it quite clear that, for one reason or another, the government has changed its mind since October 16. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) has made it clear that there is some difference of opinion even among those on the government side of the house, on this rather contentious issue. Today the minister instead of giving us the promised legislation is giving us a committee.
My first reaction must be, that I do not see how, in the very limited time remaining this session, a committee can go into the various aspects of such a comprehensive problem. As a retailer I can tell hon. members that it is a complicated problem. Therefore I think all hon. members can only conclude that the legislation forecast is like a stillborn child, dead before its birth, for this session at least.
Why has the government changed its mind? Why is there this about-face? In the past few weeks I think we have witnessed perhaps the most powerful lobby on any one issue ever seen in Canada. The government and members of parliament generally have been literally bombarded with petitions and protests against the proposed legislation, by organizations such as the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and various retail organizations. Some of the charges which these groups have made have been pretty startling. They have suggested that the small retailer is going to be ruined, and that monopolies may be fostered if this legislation becomes law. They have suggested that men will be thrown out of work. Some have even contended that ultimately the consumer is going to lose. I believe that most of these charges are exaggerated, and some of them are nonsense. I feel, nevertheless, that the government has been deeply shocked by the opposition their proposal has met from Canadian business generally. This afternoon they are beating a hasty and none too skilful retreat from that opposition.
When the minister spoke last Friday he said that we needed this committee so that the consumer, the retailer, the wholesaler and the manufacturer may place their views before the public, and have them thoroughly aired. On the surface that sounds like a reasonable proposition. Why then are so many opposition members somewhat afraid
Combines Legislation
of it? I believe they are somewhat afraid of it because of past experience. Quite candidly they doubt the government's motives. Many opposition members fear, as they pointed out, that this may be a move to delay action, to sidetrack a contentious issue and to see that nothing is done about the recommendation this year. Are such fears justified? The member who just spoke denied such motives. However let us look at our experience with past committees. I have been here since 1945, and I have sat on several committees which seem to have sidetracked an issue. For instance, I recall that a flag committee was set up in 1946.


Mr. Croll:: What about the old age pension committee?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The committee was composed of members of both houses, and set out to pick a Canadian flag. We heard dozens of witnesses and received thousands of designs. As I recall it a Canadian flag was finally selected by vote. The matter was referred back to the house, and that was the last we heard about that recommendation. The matter died there.
I recall another committee upon which I sat several years ago. I believe it has been called the Martin prices committee.


Mr. Martin:: And that did a job.


Mr. Knowles:: It put prices up still further.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The committee spent several hundred thousand dollars on legal fees and general expenses, heard a good deal of evidence, and finally made recommendations to parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Am I not right in saying that the committee received no finer commendation, when its report was presented, than by the hon. gentleman who is now honouring the house with his speech?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The recommendations were perhaps not too bad, but they were sent to parliament a few days before adjournment, and that was the last we ever heard of those recommendations. The committee thus wasted its time. I say that, from past experience, opposition members have seen committees used to sidetrack issues too often.. The government finds itself today in somewhat the same position as the boy looking after the sheep who called "wolf" once too often. They are trying to tell us that a committee is really needed. But surely the minister cannot blame opposition members if they are a little bit suspicious. Personally I am somewhat doubtful about the motives of the government in this case. Nevertheless, I am going

Combines Legislation
to support the motion to set up this committee, and I am going to do so for two specific reasons.
In the first place, despite what has been said in this debate, I do not think that the matter of resale price maintenance has been given a thorough airing by any of the past parliamentary committees or royal commissions. For a moment, I think again of the Martin prices committee. So far as I can recall, the matter of resale price maintenance received no more attention than a passing reference. Then, I recall the royal commission on prices which followed the Martin committee. It made its report in March, 1949, hut it too only dealt superficially with this matter of resale price maintenance. About 99 per cent of the evidence taken by that commission concerned the more general aspects of the inflation problem. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, even the MacQuarrie committee, which was set up not long ago, has not gone into this problem adequately.
I remind hon. members that the MacQuarrie committee was set up to study the Combines Investigation Act. Minimum resale price maintenance was only incidental to that over-all study. If I recall correctly, last Friday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) told us that it was only on September 10 that he asked the MacQuarrie committee to make an interim report on minimum resale prices. This report was in his hands on October 1, so from that I can only assume that the committee had less than three weeks to rush a report to him on this complicated subject. Despite the capabilities of the members of that committee, I do not think that they could do a proper job in such a limited time.
There is one additional factor I should like to mention concerning the MacQuarrie committee. A well deserved tribute 'has been paid to the personnel of the committee. However, I would remind the house that this committee was set up to deal with various aspects and fields of Canadian business. Surely it would have been reasonable to expect that, in dealing with such a field, at least one member of the committee should have been a businessman. Let us look at the personnel for a moment. The first man chosen was Mr. Justice MacQuarrie, the chairman, an eminent man and a judge. The other three are university men, Principal Mackintosh of Queen's; Professor Lamontagne of Laval; and Dean Curtis of the university of British Columbia. As I said a moment .ago, I do not deny that all four are outstanding men and leaders in their respective fields. Nevertheless I believe the committee would have been strengthened if the government had chosen at least one man

who had seen some of these problems from the practical point of view and from his own experience.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I favour the setting up of this committee simply because I have received dozens of letters, as I know other members in the house have, from various retailers in my constituency. Earlier in this debate one hon. member suggested that this matter has been before parliamentary committees for about a quarter of a century. Probably he is right, but every practical member knows that, in actual fact, this matter has really only been before the Canadian public for about four weeks. I say that if individual retailers wish to have a hearing, if they feel that they are being discriminated against, then surely they, like other Canadians, are entitled to a fair hearing before this elected parliament. Quite frankly I believe that four weeks ago half the members of this house did not know what resale price maintenance was. I do not think the house can be expected to vote intelligently on this subject until there is additional light thrown on it. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the setting up of the committee. I am going to hope that the government is sincere in the motives it has advanced.
At the same time I feel I should make my position on the MacQuarrie recommendation quite clear. I have listened to some very interesting speeches from the official opposition, including the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). All of their speeches have been excellent, but they still have not told the country where they stand on the recommendation. Are they for or are they against resale price maintenance? I believe the country, and even the Conservative party, would like to know where their group in parliament stands on this issue. I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is to speak in a moment; and I hope that he will clear the air in this regard.
A moment ago I said I am a retailer by vocation; and I am proud to be one. I think that retailers throughout the country probably have objected to this proposed legislation more than have any other group. Many of them are afraid of it. Some of them have advanced fairly strong arguments to back up their objections. Probably the most disturbing of those arguments which have been advanced is the contention that this legislation might let the big retailer ruin the small retailer. This is not the time to go into the pros and cons of the legislation; but as a retailer myself, I

feel that these charges are exaggerated. I should be greatly surprised if 8 per cent or, at the very outside, 10 per cent of all goods sold in Canada are subject to resale price maintenance. I therefore find it exceedingly difficult to visualize many men being put out of business.
On the other hand, I think it is obvious that to a greater or lesser extent, resale price maintenance has the tendency to restrict competition; and under price fixing the consumer no longer benefits from the efforts of the efficient distributor who is compelled to charge as much as the inefficient one, even though his costs are the same. Therefore I personally feel that it is my duty as a member of parliament, if or when this legislation reaches the floor of the house, to support the abolition of resale price maintenance.
I have been surprised at some of the opposition to this legislation. I read the brief of the chamber of commerce. I read the brief of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. Those organizations are, or always have been in the past, the groups which have paid loud tribute to the virtues of a free competitive market. When they go out to buy raw materials or when they go out to buy food, they like to have the market free. I do not see how they can be consistent, and still desire to sell their products in a controlled market. As one hon. member put it a little earlier in this debate, you would almost think that they wanted competition for everyone except themselves. I do not think the two stands are consistent.
If or when this committee is set up, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that we call before it some of the larger companies in this country who practise resale price maintenance. I would suggest that the committee call some of the automobile manufacturers, some of the tobacco companies, some of the appliance dealers, and ask those companies to justify this practice if they can. They should give us their point of view. Then we can weight it, analyse it and see whether it has merit from the nation's point of view.
I said earlier that I think this committee can serve a useful purpose; but I also say that no one in the country should be deluded into thinking that it is any answer to the rising cost of living. Such a small percentage of goods is affected by the legislation that it is not going to make much difference one way or the other to the cost of living index.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will say that this may be a political move; I do not know. But certainly, as far as the government is
Combines Legislation
concerned, it is an admission that they still have not found a solution to the rising cost of living.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, some of the comments that have been made in regard to the motion now under consideration make it quite clear that many of the hon. members have overlooked the reason that this motion is before us at all. The reason that we have this motion before us is that the speech from the throne brought forward the discussion of legislation which the government indicated it proposed to place before the House of Commons. It will be recalled that the statement which was made on that occasion related the introduction of this legislation to the inflation and the high cost of living. I think it would be well at this point to return to what was said in the speech from the throne and which introduced this subject for discussion in this house. I am reading now from the speech from the throne as reported at page 2 of Hansard of October 9 last:
The concern of our people over the rising cost of living resulting from international and domestic inflationary pressures is fully shared by the government. Every measure will be taken which my ministers believe will be effective in counteracting inflation without impairing our free institutions. The anti-inflationary measures already in force have checked the upward trend of prices of goods and services affected by their operation.
The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
I might point out that the committee's report referred to there is not the report of a committee of the house; but rather the members of this house were told that they were going to be called upon to consider legislation which has been drafted as a result of the report of the committee which on various occasions has been referred to as the MacQuarrie committee.
In this debate, speaking before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I expressed the hope that he would say what measures the government was prepared to introduce and what steps it was prepared to take to deal with the cost of living which was and is of such great concern to every thoughtful Canadian. The Prime Minister replied that at this time the government has no thought of going beyond the legislation referred to in the speech from the throne; that is, the legislation referred to in the quotation which I have just read. Therefore the only measure that the government was prepared to introduce or the only step that the government indicated it was prepared to take to

Combines Legislation
deal with the cost of living, which has been going up and continues to go up, is a step which they now say they are not prepared to take without still further extended inquiry by a committee of this house.
The hon. member who has just spoken has said that he hopes we will tell them what we propose to do about the legislation. What legislation? What legislation is he referring to? We have not seen it. No member of this house has seen it, unless members of the government have shown it to any of those associated with them. We know the legislation is drafted, but there is not a member in this house who, unless he has some private channels of information, knows what that legislation is. I for one do not intend in this house to discuss the details of legislation which is not yet before us. I wish, however, to refer back to one of the most astonishing of all the astonishing propositions put forward in this house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).
When the government decided that they were going to appoint another committee, another of the many committees that they have appointed, to deal with this subject, they decided that they were going to bring the legislation forward and have it adopted on second reading and then referred to the committee, as they had done only a few days before with that extremely important legislation regarding the various aspects of our railway problems. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said that they were advised it would not be proper. I would like to see the advice, if it was in written form. I would like to hear more of that advice if it was in oral form, because it certainly would throw a very serious doubt upon the course that has been adopted in this house ever since it became a parliament in 1867. The fact is that the long established practice in this house in dealing with legislation that calls for examination by hon. members is to bring it forward, have it passed on second reading with the understanding that it will be examined, refer it to a committee, let the committee decide the suitability of the legislation in relation to the facts that they have brought before them, and then discuss it later in committee where the actual detail of each section will be related to the advice that they have received in that committee. In this case that course is not to be followed. And yet this is the only step that the government is prepared to take, according to the Prime Minister, to deal with the increasing cost of living about which the government states that it shares the concern of the Canadian people.
When is this nonsense going to end? This did not start at the beginning of this session;

this did not start at the beginning of the session last spring; it did not start in the session last year. This has been going on for a long time. Let us just refer back to the various steps by which we have come to this point. Reference has been made to a committee which was appointed to consider, amongst other things, the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living. That was on the tenth day of February, 1948. On that day the House of Commons passed the following resolution:
That a select committee of this house be appointed to examine and to report from time to time as to:
(a)	the causes of the recent rise in the cost of living;
(b)	prices which have been raised above levels justified by increased costs;
(e) rises in prices due to the acquiring accumulating or withholding from sale by persons, firms or corporations of any goods beyond amounts reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of their businesses.
The committee was appointed, and made findings which were tabled in the House of Commons on June 25. As so often happens, they were tabled so late in the session that no adequate time remained to deal with the recommendations made in that report; but the committee did make certain recommendations. Under the heading of conclusions we read the following:
The committee therefore proposes as follows: That the government consider the immediate appointment of a commission under the Public Inquiries Act to continue the work initiated by this committee; that of investigating price structures and the factors leading to price and cost increases and increased profit margins.
And so the torch was thrown to other hands. This important committee, not underestimated by the minister who recently referred to his part in it, had passed its important task to someone else. In that case the recommendation of the committee was acted upon, and a royal commission was appointed on July 8, 1948. There was not a great lapse of time. The committee report was tabled on June 25, 1948, and on July 8, 1948, the government appointed a royal commission. That royal commission referred to the words that I have quoted. The commission was therefore set up to inquire into these very subjects. The commission heard evidence, inquired into this subject, and presented its report on March 18, 1949. It did not go very extensively into the particular subject now raised by the speech from the throne and brought before the house again by this resolution, but at page 41 of the report of the royal commission on prices we do find these words:
Throughout our inquiry we have been impressed by the degree to which individual manufacturers fix the resale prices of their products and so narrow the area in which price competition amongst wholesalers and retailers is operative. In view of the

extension of this practice we recommend that the combines investigation commission give careful study to this problem with a view to devising measures to deal with it.
And so the torch was thrown again. Then another step was taken, and at a later date a committee was appointed. That committee was announced to this house on June 27, 1950. At that time the Minister of Justice explained that Mr. Justice MacQuarrie of the supreme court of Nova Scotia and others had been appointed as a committee:
To study, in the light of present-day conditions, the purposes and methods of the Combines Investigation Act and related Canadian statutes, the legislation and procedures of other countries, in so far as the latter appear likely to afford assistance, and to recommend what amendments, if any, should be made to our Canadian legislation in order to make it a more effective instrument for the encouraging and safeguarding of our free economy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was that date?


George Alexander Drew: June 27, 1950. The committee was named in that statement. I am unable to find any record of its appointment by any order in council or even by any communication which formally states the terms of its appointment and the authority which it is to exercise. There is, however, an order in council for the payment of the members of that committee. An order in council was passed on June 16, 1950, which, as hon. members will appreciate, was 11 days before the announcement made by the Minister of Justice.
This order in council referred to those who had been appointed. I would quote part of it, in so far as it refers to the payment of members of that committee. This is order in council P.C. 2991, dated June 16, 1950, and stating in part:
The committee of the privy council on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice advise that under and by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Combines Investigation Act, authority be granted to pay the following persons for their services and expenses while engaged as a committee to study and report upon the Combines Investigation Act, and related legislation, at the rates set out below, effective May 1, 1950:
1.	The Hon. Mr. Justice J. H. MacQuarrie, his actual and reasonable living and travelling expenses while away from his normal place of residence.
2.	Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, $40 per day, and in addition his actual and reasonable living and travelling expenses while away from his normal place of residence.
3.	Mr. George F. Curtis, $40 per day, and in addition his actual and reasonable living and travelling expenses while away from his normal place of residence.
The interesting thing is that sections 8 and 9 refer only to the payment of a commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, and the sections referred to are sections which follow a section which provides for
Combines Legislation
the appointment of a special commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act.
Section 7 reads as follows:
7. (1) The governor in council may appoint, from time to time, one or more persons to be special commissioners under this act.
(2)	It shall be the duty of a special commissioner to conduct an investigation into and concerning any alleged combine indicated in the order in council signifying his appointment.
(3)	Every special commissioner shall have, with respect to and for the duration of the investigation which he is appointed to conduct, the powers which are conferred on the commissioner in sections fourteen to twenty-four, both inclusive, of this act; and wherever the word "commissioner" occurs in sections fourteen to twenty-four, both inclusive, and thirty-three to thirty-six, both inclusive, of this act, it shall be deemed to include the word "special commissioner".
(4)	The exercise of any of the powers herein conferred upon special commissioners shall not be held to limit or qualify the powers by this act conferred upon the commissioner.
I would ask the minister now if these men were appointed by the order in council as special commissioners under section 7 of the set-and I would ask him to answer now so that I may proceed to discuss the point.


Mr. Garson:: As I said in my opening remarks when introducing the motion, the appointment of these gentlemen was authorized by me in my ministerial capacity, and not by order in council.


George Alexander Drew: If that is so, then the order in council providing for the payment of these men is out of order, and gives absolutely no authority to anyone to pay, under the sections referred to in the order in council. Specific reference is made to section 8, which provides for the payment of the persons under that section.
If the commissioners have not been appointed as commissioners under section 7, then we should be told what authority they have. Because, unless they have been appointed under that or some other section, then obviously the members of the committee have no authority to call for the production of papers, nor have they authority to place any evidence which comes before them under any measure of sanctity, which would assure us of its accuracy, or compel those giving it to make sure that they were making accurate statements. I feel sure the Minister of Justice will not disagree with that statement.
The minister has provided no power in the hands of members of that committee to obtain the evidence which would make it possible for them to make effective findings in a matter of this kind. This does not say that the members of the committee did not obtain information. On the contrary, they did obtain a great deal of information. As the minister has already explained, they

Combines Legislation
have continued to obtain information, and they are still getting certain information which is not yet before them.
Having had a committee of this house appointed in 1948, and then having had a royal commission appointed, and then having had this committee appointed, we now have an interim report brought forward at the written request of the Minister of Justice. The motion now before us is simply a motion for another committee to deal with the same subject, and the torch is to be thrown once again. I use the word "torch" advisedly, because' the government attached so much importance to this step, which was going to meet the demands of the people of Canada for something to be done to hold down the cost of living, and to stem the tide of inflation which members of the government themselves have stated, on more than one occasion, may threaten our ability to maintain our defence effort.
Committee; commission; committee-and then a committee of the house. It all reminds me very much of an old rhyme which seems to apply with some force to the kind of conduct we now have before us:
Larger fleas have smaller fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And these again have other fleas And so ad infinitum.
The government is going to have another committee to take another look at this problem. Obviously that committee is not going to be able to do anything more than bring in some recommendations so that someone else may look at them and so that some other flea may do a little biting and try to get action from the government to deal with the cost of living. Because the motion before the house does not give the committee power to do anything more than bring in a report such as they can prepare before the end of this short special session. Not one single member in the house can be under any illusions that a committee set up in this way is going to be able to hear the evidence given by businesses both large and small across Canada, as well as the representations of the consumers, whom they have assured they will also hear, and then before the end of this year give a report to the house.
This reference is for the simple purpose of dodging a decision during this special session on the only thing the government was prepared to say it would do, namely, to deal with the high cost of living, which is affecting every Canadian today.
It is in the light of the very reason why this subject is before us that it seems to me this is the appropriate time to emphasize the need for immediate action by the government

to take drastic steps in some way to check the mounting cost of living and inflation, about which they themselves have expressed concern.
We have found it is not possible to amplify this motion by an amendment. We have had an amendment ruled out of order which would have had the effect of extending the inquiry into the whole field of combines legislation. Since that cannot be done, then we only have before us the reference in regard to this particular subject.
I submit that it is appropriate that the members should! point out to the government the reasons why they think they should take action to deal with this subject instead of sidetracking it in this way to a committee with the limitations under which that committee will be called upon to operate. Since we cannot move an amendment which would extend the authority of the committee to deal with the whole question of the Combines Investigation Act, I submit that it is appropriate that arguments should be put forward that at this stage the government should be prepared to widen this motion so that the hearings of this committee will be carried on in some atmosphere of reality and that they will deal with the one subject which introduced this proposed legislation in the speech from the throne, the cost of living and inflation.
The Prime Minister took occasion to compare prices in Ottawa with certain prices in Washington. There have been those who have disagreed with his conclusions, but quite apart from whether they disagreed as to the prices in Ottawa and in Washington I think it is appropriate to point out just how serious this situation is so that we may try to get the government to do something even if they insist upon placing this subject before another committee which cannot possibly deal with it in the life of that committee. Already this afternoon reference has been made to statements which have appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune, but I wish to refer to a later edition of that paper which contains a comparison of prices made by a reliable reporter in two cities of comparative size, Minneapolis and Winnipeg. The Winnipeg Tribune of Saturday, November 3, contains a number of price comparisons which it seems to me might well be put before the members of this house because they indicate that the cost of living index alone does not give a real comparison between the cost of living in Canada and in the United States.
We know that the cost of living index in Canada is now higher than the cost of living index in the United States. As has been pointed out, that cost of living index does not

include many of the things which are regarded as being essential requirements in most homes. Here are some of the comparative prices which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of
November 3;
Washing machine ..
Refrigerator	
Electric iron	
Plymouth car	
Cigarettes	
Pipe tobacco, pound
Chewing gum	
Chocolate bars 

Sirloin steak, pound Pork chops, pound
Coffee, pound	
Sugar, 5 pounds ... Grade A eggs, dozen Soup, can	
Minneapolis $ 189.95 244.75 12.95 1,828.00 .20 1.25 3 for . 10 6 for .25 1.04 .51 .93 .52 .76
3 for .29
Winnipeg $ 299.00 414.73 16.50 2,522.00 .42 3.00
. 07 each .07 each .96 .68 1.10 .75 .68
2 for .25
Those are prices taken from a much longer list given in that paper.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the leader of the opposition permit a question, and I do not ask it facetiously but only for information. I wonder if he thinks that Canadian prices would be brought down if price resale maintenance were abolished and, if he does, would he favour that course in Canada?


George Alexander Drew: Not only is that question facetious, it is entirely irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member is well aware that most of the things referred to would not be affected one way or the other by the proposal which the government put forward with such boasting when this house first met.


An hon. Member:: Why waste your time?


George Alexander Drew: The fact that some hon. members find this such a hilarious subject is in itself an indication of how completely remote they are from this problem. It is because they are showing so little consciousness of this problem and are showing so little awareness of the disastrous impact the higher cost of living is having upon a large percentage of the Canadian population at this time that I quote these figures in the hope that the government may still be led to deal with the high cost of living during this session.
These comparative prices which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune cannot be explained away by anything that might be put forward here in connection with tariffs or matters of that kind because most of these things are produced in Canada or in the United States, as the case may be, for their own consumption. We are dealing in most instances with the cost within our own country of things produced in Canada, just as they are dealing with the cost of things produced in the United States. In so far as these figures are
Combines Legislation
concerned we should keep in mind that while the prices of so many of these things are higher in Canada than in the United States the average income of our people is substantially lower than the average income of people in the United States. Therefore the real cost of living, in terms of ability to buy, is still lower than would be indicated either by figures of that kind or by the cost of living index which is published each month. The resolution before us is one which will at any rate bring before a committee evidence which cannot be obtained by the MacQuarrie committee. May I point out, however, that when we made a recommendation that the scope of the activities of the house committee be extended to cover any appropriate amendment to the Combines Investigation Act we were doing so with the knowledge that the government is not now prepared to act upon the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee. That being so, why should we wait to have another double play on other matters now referred to the MacQuarrie committee?
If the government does not intend to accept or reject the recommendations in this case, then they certainly would have no reason, and I think no right, to deal directly with the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee in regard to other subjects before them. I hope therefore that they will not waste the time of an eminent jurist and men occupying very important positions by asking them to continue to conduct an inquiry upon the result of which they do not intend to act in any event. It would be much better if they would refer the whole subject matter to a committee of this house; and that was exactly what we proposed, not because we in any way reflected upon the members of the MacQuarrie committee but simply because the government by its present action makes it clear that it does not intend to act upon the recommendations they bring forward.
There is something more involved in the course followed by the government than merely the merits of this resolution. We met for a ispecial session. In the short speech from the throne great emphasis was placed upon legislation that would be introduced to hold down the cost of living and check inflation. We are now told that this matter is to be referred to a committee without our having any such legislation placed before us. A month ago many Canadians relied upon the hopes that were aroused by the statement of the government. At the same time many small businessmen in this country were greatly alarmed by the course which the government proposed to follow. It will be recalled that the amendment we introduced called for an examination of the Combines

Combines Legislation
Investigation Act and possible amendments which would protect the consumers of Canada and also protect the small businesses of this country. Neither the small businessman nor the consumer should be left in the atmosphere of uncertainty which will result from the constant reference to some other body of a subject of this kind.
Surely the government now has before it sufficient evidence to reach some conclusion. If it has not, then let it open the whole subject so that the Combines Investigation Act may become an effective instrument in Canada for the protection of our people, as it was originally intended to be. Although the government indicated that they were not prepared to accept our resolution, I urge them to reconsider that course. I urge them to widen the inquiry so that the committee may in fact deal with the evidence when representatives of business and of consumers are actually before it. In so far as this proposal is concerned, as I have said before we would have preferred that the committee -cover the whole field. That would have been dealing with the subject in a realistic manner. Nevertheless, limited though the inquiry may be, we will support the motion. I would point out, however, that no legislation is before us, and therefore no remark that has been made here can properly deal with this subject because we do not know yet what the government really intended to do.
It has been said before, and it can now be repeated, that the government showed very little willingness to meet the demands of the Canadian people to hold down the cost of living and to check inflation if this was all that they were prepared to do. Although they are not going to be in a position to deal with inflation and the cost of living under this heading at this time, I hope that as a result of the discussions that have taken place and will take place on this motion they will -act now in the light of the evidence given us last week of a stiff further increase in the cost of living so that the people of Canada may have some hope that the rise m the cost of living will be checked and that the buying power of the Canadian dollar will be preserved.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when the government indicated its intention of asking the house to approve the setting up of the joint committee envisioned in the resolution many members were completely 'astonished, if not flabbergasted. I say many members of the house. Possibly I should say members -of the opposition because personally I am convinced that the anticipated action was made known to the members of the Liberal party before any indication was 
given to the House of Commons. If it were true that in establishing this committee certain proposed legislation was being referred to it, then probably I could understand the course of procedure adopted; but it is certainly beyond my understanding at least why, especially in the light of the announcement that was made in the speech from the throne, this action should now be taken. As I say, it is completely beyond my understanding. As indicated previously, the only thing that could be done that might appear more strange would be to set up another committee later to study and make recommendations with respect to the submissions that this committee may make to the house.
It is a fact that in speaking in the house on November 2 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) made several very -significant assertions, In the first place he indicated that in June of 1950 the MacQu-arrie committee was appointed. I thought the terms of reference were reasonably broad. That committee was charged with the responsibility of studying, in the light of present-day conditions, the purposes and methods of the Combines Investigation Act and related Canadian statutes, and the legislation and procedures of other countries, in so far as the latter appear likely to afford assistance, and to recommend what amendments, if any, should be made to our Canadian legislation in order to make it a more effective instrument for the encouraging and safeguarding of our economy. That committee was set up one year ago last June. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) indicated the care with which the committee proceeded to provide an opportunity for all interested organizations to make -representations to it. Consumers were given the opportunity of submitting their views, as were farmers, labour, industrial, mercantile and other organizations. We were told that the committee received a considerable number of formal briefs. We were told also that many informal letters and discussions were considered, and interviews relative to these written communications were held.
The Minister of Justice then proceeded to let the house know that in his firm conviction the word "interim" might be misleading inasmuch as it -might indicate that the MacQu-arrie committee had not completed a comprehensive study. He said that the report on resale price maintenance was "interim" only in the sense that it had been made before the committee completed all of its deliberations. On page 664 of Hansard the minister said:
But so tar as resale price maintenance is concerned the report expresses the considered views of the committee in a complete and final matter.

When the debate on this resolution commenced last week it was indicated by certain speakers 'that the government's action, because of the special paragraph in the speech from the throne asserting that legislation would be submitted to parliament, had undergone a rather complete transformation. Some of us have cause to wonder why that transformation took place. I understand the minister wrote the chairman of the committee early in September asking if the report am resale price maintenance could be made available early in October. On October 1 the report was submitted to the minister. Between October 1 and October 9, surely the minister and the cabinet, with the assistance and advice they have at their disposal, gave careful consideration to the MacQuarrie report. I shall give them credit for having gone into it quite thoroughly. Then the paragraph was inserted in the speech from the throne; and it reads:
The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers oi goods should be prohibited from acquiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
Let me repeat that before this paragraph was ever inserted in the speech from the throne, the government must have given very careful consideration to the interim report. Moreover, they must have concluded that legislation was both necessary and desirable. This view must have represented the majority view of the cabinet. The government no doubt took this report, and in determining that legislation would be necessary not only agreed with the recommendations but were prepared to introduce legislation having the effect of carrying out at least part of the recommendations of that committee. There were only two recommendations. The government must have concluded that they would recommend the implementation of one or both, otherwise why the reference to legislation? Those two recommendations were, first, that it should be made an offence for a manufacturer or supplier to recommend or prescribe minimum resale prices for his products; second, to refuse to sell, to withdraw a franchise or to take any other form of action as a means of enforcing minimum resale prices.
Surely, the government must have known that the committee laid down approximately seven points to back up the position they had taken. Point No. 1, as I find it in this brief, was that the direct and immediate effect of resale price maintenance is the elimination of resale price competition amongst retailers in price-maintained goods. I would ask the Minister of Justice, does the government
Combines Legislation
agree with that? I shall go on to No. 2. According to the committee, resale price maintenance facilitates and makes more effective horizontal agreements among manufacturers. I would ask the government whether, in considering that contemplated legislation, they agreed with that? In the third place, the committee asserted that resale price maintenance, to be effective, requires some method of enforcement; and if enforcement is involved the MacQuarrie committee seemed to indicate that it establishes a private system of a law from which there is no appeal to the courts. One might ask the Minister of Justice if, in contemplating that proposed legislation, the government agreed with that expression of opinion. The committee said there was some evidence that resale price maintenance establishes a price level higher than it would be under competition. I would ask the minister, as I have done before, whether in this contemplated legislation envisaged in the speech from the throne the government agreed with that? The committee did not think that withdrawing from the retailer the right to make any price reduction was a satisfactory way of preventing unfair and excessive price cutting. In other words, we get into the loss leader here. When we mention that, what was the government's attitude prior to the opening of parliament on that particular subject? Then, of course, the committee referred to the fact that if a manufacturer is concerned about prices going up unreasonably, all he needs to do is reduce the maximum price. The committee also expressed the opinion that the dealers in branded goods would not suffer greatly from normal sales variation such as we find under conditions where there is no price fixing in operation.
In my opinion the government, in contemplating legislation, must have gone a long way towards agreeing with the MacQuarrie committee so far as those expressions of opinion are concerned. I have already referred to the two recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and again I ask that question. Prior to October 9 did the government agree with one or both of those recommendations? The government must have been thoroughly familiar also, prior to October 9, with all objections raised by the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retailers with respect to the MacQuarrie committee recommendations on resale price maintenance. Surely the government was familiar with the fact, as was the minister, that in this report were listed the arguments advanced by those groups opposing the elimination of the practice. Surely the government was familiar with the fact that the committee-a competent committee, one which the minister himself

Combines Legislation
would defend-weighed the objections to the elimination of resale price maintenance against the arguments advanced in support of it, and must have come to the conclusion that the great bulk of the evidence was in favour of those opinions and recommendations of the committee. Otherwise why even mention legislation? Surely the suggestion of legislation indicates that the government proposes to do something. In my opinion the government should at this time, even before the committee commences its deliberations, indicate the nature of the action they would have taken.
This committee is being asked to consider legislation arising out of the MacQuarrie committee interim report. That may be one purpose, but my personal conviction is this. As someone said the other day, this whole thing has become a political hot potato; and when the government is faced with political hot potatoes there is nothing they seem more desirous of doing than of throwing the responsibility on someone else. The government set up the MacQuarrie committee. The government laid down the terms of reference. The government, in appointing the members of the committee, must have felt confident they were appointing the best men. Then why not indicate to this house and to the country one of two things? Why not say: "We do not intend to do anything about the MacQuarrie report", or: "We intend to do something; we are going to display the intestinal fortitude that might be required in bringing forward legislation for this house to consider." In my opinion that would have been the proper course of procedure.
This committee is going to sit-that is, as far as this session is concerned-I would assume for no more than five or six weeks. What will happen? Those who appear before that committee will be the same organizations that appeared before the MacQuarrie committee. There will be a rehashing of all the arguments advanced previously. Those who are in favour will come and say what they said to the members of the MacQuarrie committee. Those who are opposed will appear and advance similar arguments. The committee will be asked to make a suggestion as to what should be done. Then the government will probably feel that it is in the happy position of being able ito say: The opposition in this house will now have to assume some of the responsibility for whatever decision is rendered. Mr. Speaker, the opposition in this house could easily show the house and the country where we stand when we vote on government legislation. Let me repeat that this was a government committee. The terms of reference were laid down by the government. They asked for the report. They

obtained the report. They contemplated submitting legislation, and as yet they have not given this house a good reason for not having carried out the suggestion or the assurance contained in the speech from the throne.
In speaking the other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said something which rather interested me, and I am going to ask for elaboration. As reported at page 664 of Hansard of November 2, he said:
In the light of this specific and concrete proposal the government has been strongly urged, by many individual merchants and manufacturers and by the executives of several representative industry or trade associations, to afford them an opportunity to present their views to the government or to a parliamentary committee.
Then he went on later and asserted that it would be preferable, in his opinion, "from many standpoints", to have this matter submitted to a joint committee of both houses of parliament. I now want to hear what those many standpoints are. The Minister of Justice certainly did not go far the other day in giving his reasons for feeling that this matter should be submitted to a joint committee. He said the press would be allowed to attend. The press have been given the MacQuarrie committee report, and I am certain that all those who gave evidence, either in support of resale price maintenance or in opposition to it, would be only too happy to give to the press all the information they have in relation to their views. The minister said that members of this house could procure additional information. I am quite confident that these same organizations would-and many of them have already done so-submit to the members of this house their views in quite some detail in relation to this whole question.
I am personally convinced that between October 1 and October 12 the government came to the conclusion that, politically, this whole thing might be dynamite. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not political dynamite; but maybe certain other hon. members are in a slightly different position than I am in relation to the whole question of politics and public life. I am convinced,
I repeat, that the matter has became such a hot political issue, as far as the government is concerned, that they are giving it to this joint committee, hopeful either that nothing will result or that, if anything does result, then of course the whole house will have to bear the responsibility for whatever consequences might result. But let me repeat what I said a moment ago. Had the government brought down this legislation envisioned in the speech from the throne, every hon. member in this house would be in a position to make known to the house and to the

country exactly where he stood on this question of resale price maintenance. In my opinion it is utterly fantastic for the government to expect a committee to sit for such a short period of time and do a job which the MacQuarrie committee took better than a year to do, with all the assistance and advice it had. Oh, I know someone is going to say: We are not going to be asked to do the same job. We are going to be asked to consider the interim report of the committee and then recommend certain legislation. But let us not be unmindful of the fact that we have already been told that all of these interested organizations will be given an opportunity to appear before this committee and make their submissions.
The government, through the Minister of Justice, has indicated its hope that this committee will be able to report so that legislation can be drafted and considered during this present session of parliament. To me that is a ridiculous approach to the whole question. I urge the government to change its mind and bring forward legislation so that concrete action can be taken upon it very soon.
I have not failed to observe what is being said across the country with respect to this proposed action. I am not unmindful of the fact that those newspapers which come forward quickly either to apologize for this or other Liberal governments or to support them in what they are doing have not hesitated to come forward to indicate their opposition to this proposed action. I just observed something today on the editorial page of the Toronto Daily Star; and I read both the Star and the Globe and Mail, especially at this time when a provincial election is on. I have a little clipping service of my own, and just for the fun of it I clip reports from each paper relative to the same thing and then go through them to see how widely apart these reports are in reference to a certain specific incident. It would require no stretch of the imagination for one to assert that the Toronto Daily Star is an avowed supporter of the Liberal party. In fact, when I see some of the things that have been appearing in the Star recently, I almost assume that it is a sheet put out by some seller of pills carrying testimonials as to the effectiveness of the product. That is the impression I have from what appeared on the front page of yesterday's issue. Anyway, this is what the Star has to say in part with respect to this proposed action:
Since the government announced its intention of carrying out this recommendation, a great uproar of protest has been raised by members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, retail druggists' groups and others. Their complaints have ranged from the plausible to the absurd, but all they boil down to is an unwillingness on the part of these business
Combines Legislation
groups to face the full competition which is supposed to be the essence of the private enterprise system. Maurice Lamontagne of Laval university, one of three economists who served on the MacQuarrie committee, stated the issue correctly when he declared that competition must be "the price of the liberty of enterprise." It is regrettable that the government, instead of acting promptly on the advice of these impartial and highly qualified investigators, has taken a course which can only delay remedial action. There is ample evidence on record now to show that while resale price maintenance makes easier profits for manufacturers and some retailers, it harms the consumer.
Certainly the Star is critical of the government's proposed action, and certainly there is evidence that papers all across this country feel the same way about it. They feel that way not necessarily because they all want the government to outlaw resale price maintenance, not because they are opposed to the outlawing of it, but because they are opposed to the method employed by the government in dealing with this issue. That is my position. My opposition is to the method employed by the government in dealing with this matter. In my opinion it indicates a lack of courage on the part of the government; it indicates a lack of willingness to face up squarely to something which should be dealt with effectively and immediately.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the resolution now before the house. Before doing so may I say that when the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) spoke he shortened my remarks to a considerable extent, because most of what he said was what I intended to say. I think he made a practical address, the best on this subject so far.
The resolution that is before the house, to set up a joint committee to go into price maintenance at the manufacturers' level, is very important. I think the government did well to suggest the committee. In speaking on this subject the other day the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made the suggestion that the government was giving leadership in reverse. I wonder whether it is the government that is in reverse or the official opposition. Almost at all times when we have had resolutions before the house the opposition has called for committees to look into them. If I may, I should like to refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). I am not critical of his remarks; I am complimenting him on them. I find that he said, as reported at page 155 of Hansard of October 18:
It seems to me that undue weight has been given to the opinions of those who advocate legislation to

Combines Legislation
prohibit price maintenance. I suggest in all the humility of a private member that some of the evidence on which their decision was based is at least questionable, and I believe part of it to be untenable. Before 1 continue I am going to make the request that a committee of this house have the opportunity to hear the evidence which led to the present decision and any other evidence that may be available before legislation to implement these recommendations is introduced.
I would think that hon. member is one of the senior members of the official opposition. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre that the opposition get together and see whether they are going forward or backward, and whether they agree to having a committee to deal with this subject.
As I say, this is an important committee. I should like to refer again to the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. He suggested that he did not think the members of this house could vote intelligently on this subject. I am going to have to confess that I do not think I could. The committee will give hon. members a chance to hear the pros and cons of the suggestions made by those who appear before them. I do not expect to be a member of the committee, but there are a few questions that I would like to ask the manufacturers at least. I do' not want to leave the impression that I am opposed to big business or that I am in favour of it. I do not know too much about it, but I am interested. Even if I am not a member of the committee I am sure I have enough friends in all parties in the house to ask the questions for me. One of the questions I should like to ask on price maintenance is: How does the manufacturer arrive at the fixed price? We all know that many things go into the price of an article. Starting at the manufacturer's level, there are the material, labour and overhead. That constitutes the article. Naturally the manufacturer must have his profit. No one has a quarrel with profit provided that it is reasonable. From there on it goes tc the jobber or wholesaler. We all know that the jobber or wholesaler must have a profit. Under the present set-up he has nothing to do with setting the price he receives; the manufacturer sets it. I should like to know how the manufacturers decide on the profit the wholesaler or the jobber should have. That is not all. We go on down the line until we come to the retailer. We know that the retailer must have a profit. We have no quarrel with that, provided it is a reasonable profit. I should like to know how the manufacturers arrived at the price for themselves, for the wholesalers and for the retailers. Possibly some of the hon. members who have criticized the setting up of a committee can answer that question. If they can I will be glad to hear from them. Therefore I say the
[Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain) .1
committee is important. Whether the amount of time that is allotted will be sufficient to enable them to deal with everything, I am not sure. I will not take up much of the time of the house; I hope the committee will be set up shortly and that it will go to work. I believe it was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who said that he reads the Toronto papers. Well, I have the Globe and Mail before me, today's issue, and I find that under the heading "Short-sighted Criticism" it says:
Rather than making protests that the dominion government has referred the legislation on resale price maintenance to a joint house-senate committee, opposition members should be pleased that the bill is not being offered without such scrutiny.
Had it not been for this committee, I am satisfied the government would have been accused of using bulldozing and steam roller methods to get the legislation through the house. The article goes on to say:
The opposition groups have protested on other occasions when the government has offered legislation without giving any opportunity for commit tee consideration. It is a bit shortsighted to contradict themselves in connection with the pricing legislation. It is charged that the cabinet wishes either to abandon or unduly delay the measure. If that is so, it should be part of the committee's duty to circumvent such an intention. Consideration by a committee is the surest way of producing, in public, the relevant knowledge from which a sound law can be fashioned and brought before parliament with assurance of its acceptance.
It would seem therefore that the Globe and Mail is in agreement with what the government is doing.
Having said that, I should like to speak briefly about something I believe is relevant to this subject, in that it deals with the Combines Investigation Act. May I say at once that I am not too familiar with the act. I do know, however, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) holds a very important position in the government. Those of us who believe in free enterprise will look forward to the minister's protecting private enterprise to which this act applies. In my opinion at least three parties in the house, and part of the other one, will support the minister if he will keep the act intact and well lubricated so that it may run to earth outfits composed of selfish businessmen or business organizations who would seek to discriminate against the public. May I add that I am certain these businessmen and concerns constitute only a small percentage of the whole.
The Combines Investigation Act should be considered our strong right arm by all businessmen and all free enterprisers; because if we are not going to protect the free enterprise which so many of us cherish, if we are not going to keep free enterprise clear of

monopolies, then we are going to have government monopoly. 1 hope the minister will see to it that the act is made to operate effectively.
I believe the committee will be successful, and that much will be learned from it. Indeed I have no doubt that not only the hon. member for Moose Mountain but some of these members in the opposition who have been so critical will have much to learn also.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament I am interested in all facets of Canadian life. Throughout the years I have been particularly interested in two things, the growing development of monopolies and unfair trade practices, and the growing and vicious exploitation of our natural resources. I presume those subjects are dear to my heart because I am one of those persons who value their independence, and I am one who has been content to cultivate his cabbage patch in the wilderness, and in comparative poverty, father than to live under the influence of some industrial Pharaoh. So I presume that makes this a pet subject so far as I am concerned.
After having the MacQuarrie report with respect to resale price maintenance, and after the public had been informed of the government's intention with respect to that report in the realm of legislation, as set out in the speech from the throne, and after Canadians had listened to the dulcet tones of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in his speech of October 16, I am sure the majority would be greatly disappointed to learn that action along the lines suggested in the minister's speech and in the speech from the throne is once again being deferred by the suggestion that a parliamentary committee be established. While many Canadians did not expect that this timid approach to the question of unfair trade practices was going to produce a miracle or work wonders, I am sure there were many who thought that now the government was at least commencing to singe the tentacles of unfair trade practices and monopolies.
I should like to refer, if only briefly, to the resale price maintenance report of October 1. At page 5, in the terms of reference, we find this:
The terms of reference were: "to study, in the light of present day conditions, the purposes and methods of the Combines Investigation Act and related Canadian statutes, and the legislation and procedures of other countries, in so far as the latter appear likely to afford assistance, and to recommend what amendments, if any, should be made to our Canadian legislation in order to make it a more effective instrument for the encouraging and safeguarding of our free economy."
Combines Legislation
I would draw attention to the words "free economy" because I shall have something to say about them later. Then at page 8 we find this:
Submissions received.
As indicated above, the committee received a great many briefs, nearly all of which made some reference to resale price maintenance. They reveal divergent opinions on the subject. Although there are some notable exceptions, in general the associations representing manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers favoured resale price maintenance. On the contrary, co-operatives, labour unions, farmers and consumers associations expressed opposition to the practice.
And at page 21, after its study of the evidence presented by both groups, those for and against, we find this:
The committee, therefore, recommends that it should be made an offence for a manufacturer or other supplier:
1.	To recommend or prescribe minimum resale prices for his products:
2.	To refuse to sell, to withdraw a franchise or to take any other form of action as a means of enforcing minimum resale prices.
It is interesting to note in the committee's report that the manufacturers and retailers, those engaged in business, were in favour of this practice. Therefore we must assume it is a practice of advantage to those groups. On the other hand those representing labour, consumers and farmers' organizations were opposed to the practice. Therefore we must assume that these people had come to the conclusion that it is a practice that is contrary to the interests of the majority of the Canadian people. When we realize that, through its president Mr. Hannam, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has expressed strong opinions respecting price maintenance, that the Canadian Congress of Labour has expressed its opposition to this practice in no uncertain terms, that the president of the Trades-and Labour Congress of Canada has expressed the opposition of that organization to this practice, that the Canadian consumers association has done likewise, that co-operative societies have expressed their opposition, and that only recently the national council of women expressed its opposition, we must recognize that while on the one hand there are organizations representing a few thousand people, on the other hand there are organizations representing millions of people. As a small peasant farmer I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the workings of price maintenance and so on, but I do suggest that the heads of these representative organizations who have expressed this vigorous opinion, who have made some study of the question, realize that they are speaking on behalf and in the interests of the great majority of the people they are supposed to represent.
We noted that after the report was tabled, after the minister's broadcast and after the

Combines Legislation
speech from the throne indicated the intention of the government to proceed with legislation to prevent this practice, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce met in Montreal and discussed this subject. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressed its opposition ini no uncertain terms and suggested that the government should delay action. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) mentioned a day or two ago, it is interesting to note that apparently the opinions of people representing millions of people in Canada are not listened to, whereas the opinions expressed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce representing business in general apparently were given consideration by the government in its proposal to establish a joint committee of both houses.
I said that I intended to deal with the words "free economy" because I find them used by the minister and several other speakers in this debate. Before proceeding I should like to quote from the minister's interesting speech of October 16. I might say that after listening to that speech one dear old lady said to me, "You know, I think he must be a nice chap from the way he talks." This is what the minister had to say on that occasion:
If all the dealers In an industry secretly agree or combine to sell at the same price, competition is eliminated. If competition is thus replaced by combines and monopolies, then sooner or later public opinion would demand that if we must have monopolies we must have government-controlled monopolies. In that way our free economy would be transformed gradually into a government-controlled one. Now none of us want that; and it is the purpose of the Combines Investigation Act to prevent that result. By preserving competition it obviates the need for government control and thus helps to assure the continuance of our free economy. Preventing combines, therefore, proceeds upon an entirely different principle to that of price control.
We in this group think the minister is under a complete illusion when he refers constantly to a free economy as being a thing that presently exists. I repeat the minister's words1:
[DOT]-then sooner or later public opinion would demand that if we must have monopolies we must have government-controlled monopolies.
Monopolies exist at the present time and have existed for years. They are developing and growing. The difference between the position taken by this group and that taken by other parties in this house is that we recognize that the development of monopoly capitalism is inevitable. The minister says that the people would resent government controlled monopolies, but we say that the people of Canada now resent privately controlled monopolies that control such a large segment of our economy and of our lives. Even the former prime minister, Right Horn. W. L. Mackenzie King, recognized that fact years ago I have been interested in reading
[Mr. Herridge.l
some of his speeches on this question throughout the years to the public and as printed in Hansard. During one debate when dealing with the Combines Investigation Act in general terms the former prime minister said we. had monopolies, that that was recognized, and that all the Combines Investigation Act sought to do was to regulate monopolies so they would not operate against the public interest.
The minister suggests that we do not want monopolies; that we can do without them; that they do not exist; that by legislation we will destroy monopolies, or otherwise we will have government controlled monopolies. There is no question that monopolies are here today, and they are here to stay. It is just a question whether they are operated by private individuals responsible only to a board of directors or are controlled by representatives of the people through parliament. I have a large amount of what I think is reasonably conclusive evidence that leading economists agree that monopolies exist and are increasing in size, power and influence. I should like to quote from a speech by Harold W. Davey, professor of industrial economics, Iowa state college, published by the co-operative alliance, as follows:
There are virtually no sectors left in our economy where market price is determined by the impersonal forces of supply and demand. In most cases prices are set by the seller; they are administered prices. Changes in demand are met with output changes rather than price adjustments.
A number of specialists in economics have said almost the same thing in recent years. I think that is generally recognized. I do hope that in future the minister will not suggest, either over the radio or to this house, that we do not want monopolies to exist, that we are going to legislate them out of existence because if we do not the people will have to accept government controlled monopolies. Let the minister face the fact that we have monopoly control in Canada at the present time. This group wants that monopoly control placed in the hands of the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hear a buzzing across the aisle; apparently an hon. member does not agree with what I am saying. The former prime minister stated repeatedly that the cure for this was publicity, to let the light of publicity shine on these evil practices. The light of publicity has been shining on these evil practices for years without any effect. In our opinion the only thing that will be effective is legislation which controls these monopolies through parliament, and which imposes sufficient punishment to deter the crime. Not only did the former prime minister admit the existence of monopolies

and their inevitable development; leading members of the Conservative party have said the same thing. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from what was said by the late Lord Bennett on January 4, 1935, just prior to the election:
You would agree that free competition and the open market place, as they were known in the old days, have lost their place in the system, and that the only substitute for them, in these modern times, is government regulation and control.
Any member of this group could have said that. I notice that the later descendants of the Conservative party, now known as the Progressive Conservative party, make no mention of that fact. I think it would be more correct to term them the regressive Conservative party. Lord Bennett then went on to say:
The economic system must be reformed. Great social and economic changes have taken place in the life of all the nations and these have gravely disturbed the operation of the system.
Therefore capitalism must change to meet the changed conditions of this new world, if it is longer adequately to serve you.
If you hold the views I do, what would you require to be done? Would you demand reform? Would you demand that the government, as the only power able to effect the necessary measures of reform, act decisively and without delay?
Would you proclaim the urgent need of government regulation of business?
I think you would, if you had a proper regard for your own welfare. And of course you have, and so assuredly have I.
Many years ago disequilibrium in the original interrelationship of wages, costs, prices and profits began to manifest itself. This disequilibrium has been increasing. As that machine grew mightier and more dominant, so competition became proportionately less effective to achieve its original purpose. What we are concerned with as practical men and humanitarians is to devise some corrective of the disabilities which it takes no economist to discern. Whatever caused them, there is a fair and sensible cure which can be effectively applied. It is our business to apply it.
Then I should also like to refer to the words of Mr. Bennett as quoted at page 3825 of Hansard for June 20, 1935, as follows:
Men whose mounting bank rolls loom larger than your happiness, corporations without soul and without virtue.	>
These are the people we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.
The real answer is that there is something wrong with the system.
In those radio speeches Mr. Bennett clearly-indicated, after his experience of four years in office in this country, that there was no way to cure the evil except by government regulation of monopolies and unfair trade practices.


Mr. Wylie:: They are dead and gone, so forget about them.
Combines Legislation


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for
Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) mentions the fact that some of these people to whom I have referred are dead and gone and that we should forget them. The party to which I belong believes in learning lessons from the past in order to plot the course of the future.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: At one time you did not even belong to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to refer to one other prominent Conservative who also expressed in even a little stronger language his opinion of this development in our society. I refer to Hon. H. H. Stevens, former minister of trade and commerce in the Conservative government. At page 3517 of Hansard for June 11, 1935, he said, while speaking on the trade commission bill:
Constitutionally, politically, and nominally, Canada is a democracy, but actually Canada is ruled by a plutocratic autocracy. I know there are those who will consider that an extreme statement, but I think it is necessary for the House of Commons to look the facts squarely in the face. It is not a thing to laugh about. It is something, sir, that we in this house, the last fortress I might say of democracy, ought to take into very careful consideration, because if parliament fails in its duty to a democratic state then I hesitate to say what may be the consequence of its failure to discharge such a duty. This house must take notice of these developments. ... I say to this house with great earnestness that this country is waiting for the House of Commons to lay down rules which will relieve countless thousands of our citizens from the unfair and predatory practices to which they have been subjected in the past.
That is exactly what the people of this country are waiting for this parliament to do at the present time. One could repeat those exact words today and they would have precisely the same meaning and the same relation to the attitude of the people.


James Garfield Gardiner: Would they have the same effect on the fellow who used them?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not hear what the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I asked whether the statements would have the same effect on the fellow who uses them now as they had on the fellow who used them then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Possibly the government is looking to the past for experience as well. There is plenty of evidence today of these conditions. I am not going to take time to give any more quotations or deal with that side of the question except that I must refer to the very excellent speech made by that Liberal front bencher, the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr Stuart), on October 31. When I heard him dealing with the question of free trade and the control of monopolies in this country, pointing out very clearly and giving many illustrations of the overcharging of the

Combines Legislation
Canadian people by such monopolies, it warmed the cockles of my heart. I have often wondered whether the government listens with greater interest to the remarks and suggestions of the middle benchers behind the cabinet or the front benchers on the rump side in the Liberal party-and I will include in that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Gibson)-because I think so far this session there has been a more positive approach to the problem by the rump than by the middle benchers behind the cabinet ranks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rump looks forward, in other words.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say it did my heart good to listen to that salty and breezy speech of the hon. member for Charlotte. I liked the way the waves of his eloquence were washing clean the beachheads of liberalism.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Washing up a little grit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The economic monopoly existing in Canada at the present time, which has a great deal to do with the rising costs of living and inflation, is felt by all. It is felt by the people in their pocketbooks. It has a social significance and influence, and it has a political influence. Just before closing I want to deal with a few of these aspects. I think we are all well aware of the economic effects of monopolies on the Canadian people. However, I think some of us do not give quite as much consideration to the social effects of monopoly in this country. The large newspapers of this country seem to be growing larger. The big dailies are growing fewer in number, larger in size, and more dependent on wealthy advertisers. There is no question about that. In that connection I want to refer to a clipping from the economic news service of the international co-operative alliance, London, England, on the question1 of prices and monopolies. It reads as follows:
The rising cost of newsprint is making it more difficult for an increasing number of newspapers in ail countries to keep afloat. The newspaper business for a long time already is a large scale enterprise and many small newspapers have drifted back to unimportance. The rising costs of newsprint, capital equipment and editorial services now result in more and more newspapers and magazines disappearing altogether from the scene. The relation of monopoly to freedom of the press is not a simple one but the increased concentration of newspapers into fewer hands-the survival of the fattest- focuses attention to its implications. Reports from the United States of America indicate that one daily per month nowadays discontinues publication and joins bigger and financially more powerful groups. In many towns there is now only one daily and several states are without newspaper competition altogether. It means, amongst others, more work for the anti-trust division of the department of justice. Newspapers now try to monopolize advertising and news by boycotting clients who patronize local radio and television stations or weekly magazines.

In addition to the effect on the great dailies there is the effect of monopolies on our weekly press. Anyone who cares to go back and read the pages of the weekly newspapers of twenty-five, thirty, forty and fifty years ago will notice the very great difference between the papers of those days and the papers of today. You will find that many have become almost colourless. You will find that in the case of a number of papers they have on the masthead, "an independent paper published in the interests of" such and such a community, but the editorials contain no pep. They may deal with minor issues, but very few small weekly newspapers will tackle a major issue if the newspaper is published within the radius of the influence of a large corporation. That is because they are dependent on these corporations for advertising and other business, and they do not want to offend them. Monopoly development is having a big influence on the independence of the small weekly newspapers of Canada. That is evident from a reading of the press of years ago and the press of today. Big business and monopoly interests even cause people in the churches to keep quiet when they would like to speak out. I have had more than one clergyman tell me that he agreed with what I had to say, or with what somebody else had to say in criticism of a corporation or a policy, but he would go on to say that it would not be wise for him to say so because the company would not like it, and so on.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is nonsense.


Major James William Coldwell: That is true.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are also developing another group of people who are less and less directly taking an active part in political and social affairs. I refer to the large number in the professional class, university trained, who become executives or who are chemists or engineers, people of that sort.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Rhodes scholars?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Rhodes scholars as well.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They don't know anything.


Mr. Noseworfhy:: You would be better if you were one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those people are trained at public expense-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not very well trained, though.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -to make a great contribution to Canadian economic, social and political development. I have noticed this. If they happen to be working for large corporations and taking part in community affairs or affairs at a certain level, you will find that

on the whole they do not become active in the political parties of this country, particularly in political parties such as the one to which I belong. This is a large group of well trained persons who are performing useful functions in society, but whose services are not being obtained by the state for political and social development.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, I have noticed the effect which large corporations or monopolies have on government employees. We have many splendid government employees, but I am speaking of employees in distant parts and possibly in the lower grades. I remember listening to a radio announcement. I happened to be in the mountains last summer, because I am very fond of the mountains. I heard a shortwave radio broadcast from a forest ranger to the forest service dealing with the shutting down of the mills in a certain area. For a certain period last summer all the mills in British Columbia were shut down because of the dry season. In this particular district there are possibly a dozen small mills and one large one. I listened to this broadcast because I happened to be at a forest ranger's station. I heard the man suggesting that the main thing was to get the big mill going, and it did not matter about the little mills. This was not a serious thing because all the mills were operating in a few days, but it indicates the state of mind that a monopoly creates. Very often the management of monopolies are not responsible for it. Many of the top level officials are very fine people. I mean that monopoly control, through private interests, creates a state of mind which, in my opinion, is more and more throttling the grass roots democracy.
I noticed it also, Mr. Speaker, when it came to the question of protecting our timber rights or protecting our water rights, our natural resources-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is getting far afield from the principle of the resolution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I believe I am in order, and I am concluding soon. When it comes to protecting our various resources and our water needs, you will find that government officials listen very attentively to the wishes of big business. I have seen some government servants, as well as the representatives of big business, disregard the rights of the small man. Recently I heard about the development of a large power line in my constituency. The engineers arrived on the farm of a pioneer whom I have known for thirty odd years. They set the men to work cutting
Combines Legislation
a power line through this man's property without ever consulting him. He came to see me, and I advised him to turn them out. He did so, and the whole thing is held up until the company makes an offer. Then, if that offer is not satisfactory, the case goes to arbitration. Over and over again I have seen the representatives of the people, that is government employees, fail to protect the rights of the small people because these big corporations almost strike fear into the hearts of everyone.
I say without hesitation that if we have increasing development of monopoly control in this country we are going to have a greater sapping of the moral courage of the Canadian people. Canadians are well known for their physical courage. The big corporations not directly responsible to the representatives of the people for the development of their operations are sapping the moral courage of a good many Canadians at this time. In fact in some cases we are almost getting a lickspittle attitude.
We have been dealing with this question of combines for a good many years. I find that there was anti-combines legislation dating from the year 1889, at which time it was included in the Criminal Code. In 1910 the first Combines Investigation Act was passed. This remained on the statute books until 1919, when it was repealed. In 1919 we had the Combines and Fair Prices Act, which was declared unconstitutional by the privy council. In 1923 the present Combines Investigation Act was passed, and it has been amended since. We have had committees galore. In 1919 we had a prices committee to throw the light of publicity on prices of the day. It had no result. In 1923-24 we had a prices committee on machinery; in 1935 a price spreads committee, when some more publicity was shed on unfair trade practices, but without result. In 1938 we had a tobacco committee; in 1948 the prices committee, but prices have continued to rise ever since. In 1950 we have the MacQuarrie committee set up to deal with the question we are now discussing.
We have had fifty years of tampering with the question of unfair trade practices and monopolies. We have not been able to get very far as yet. We have had rising prices and few prosecutions throughout the years. Why, Mr. Speaker, fining a match company and a bakery a few thousand dollars is just like fining a member of this group fifteen cents. It has no effect whatever. I am quite sure that this legislation will not be effective-


George Alexander Cruickshank: The whole group?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, fifteen cents each over
here-unless, Mr. Speaker, the legislation makes some of these acts a criminal offence

Combines Legislation
and provides for imprisonment. A short term of imprisonment would be viewed in a different light by some of these people than a modest fine.
With regard to this matter of dealing with combines and unfair price practices, I have two criticisms to make. Fines mean nothing to those committing the offences. There is no compensation for the victims; and the victims on the whole have been the Canadian people. After the fine has been levied and paid there is no control of the combines, so they go on again for some years until the slow machinery of government moves and they are assessed another small fine. We in this group stand for effective control of monopoly and effective punishment in order to protect the people and their natural resources.
This question of price maintenance control has been considered in other countries. According to reports I have read recently it has been given considerable consideration in Great Britain. Apparently it has been considered as an evil there. I just want to read briefly from the Lloyd Jacobs report on resale price maintenance, made in June, 1949:
In many cases . . . the enforcement ... is entrusted to a trade association, which includes both manufacturers and distributors in its membership; these associations are sometimes created especially for the purpose but usually perform other functions as well. They usually have a complicated system of rules under which resale prices are enforced by warnings, fines, the denial of supplies or expulsion from the association. Here again the circumstances in which the various methods of enforcement are used may differ considerably between trades, but the basis of them all is that if one member's prescribed prices are disregarded, all the members take remedial action.
. . . We are satisfied that the elimination of price competition over the greater part of the distributive trades is not consistent with the need for maximum efficiency and economy in production and distribution so necessary in the present economic circumstances.
. . . Co-operative societies are prevented by the rules of some associations from handling certain products at all, even if they agree not to rank the article in question for dividend.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it had the same effect in Great Britain that it had in Canada. I also note that the co-operative societies over there made a protest against this practice, similar to the one they have made in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the hon. member in favour of control of prices of crown land or timber leases? Is he in favour of a maximum or minimum price of lumber, about which I am sure he knows more than I do?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think we in this group have clearly indicated that we are in favour of a policy of price control in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole; and we would cover any of those commodities that are necessary for the livelihood of the Canadian people.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is in favour of that, is he?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Absolutely. This group
supports the recommendations of the Mac-Quarrie committee report. As I said before, I know little about the details of this practice, but we have confidence in the learned gentlemen who were appointed to consider this question. I am sure the government chose competent people and we have confidence in their judgment. Having confidence in their judgment, and knowing the attitude of the Canadian people with regard to this question, this group supports the recommendations of the MacQuarrie report as a step in the right direction; as I said before, as possibly the first singeing of one of the tentacles of the octopus of unfair trade practices. In saying that, we are not suggesting that small business is to blame for those practices. They are all trying to make a living under an evolving economic system. At this point I want to quote from page 7 of the report of the price spreads commission, as quoted in Hansard of June 20, 1935, at page 3836:
It is the fierceness of the struggle, not any unusual depravity in the men concerned, which leads to the adoption of such practices. No one businessman can afford to follow the dictates of his conscience and refuse to conform.
I have had some people tell me that in other words. Then again, still quoting from the report:
The only way out is for all the members of a trade or industry to agree to ban certain unethical practices, or for the state to force them all to agree to such abandonment.
As I said before, we believe it is the function of the state to step in in this case. Again I repeat, as we see it, we have the choice between regulation and control by parliament, or monopoly control to the increasing disadvantage of the Canadian people.
Before concluding I want to deal with a reference made in an editorial in the Financial Post to the question of price maintenance. I will not quote it all but merely the last paragraphs, which read:
Right next door to the Department of Justice, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture go right on with their uniform price fixing. In every province, provincial governments set up boards to fix the price of milk and anyone who tries to monkey with these levels, either up or down, soon finds himself in trouble.

One of the biggest price fixers is the government-created wheat board. Not only does this board set a rigid price for wheat and feed grains, both in buying and selling but it has a complete monopoly of marketing as well.
It's about time we had some consistency in this matter. If there is something wrong in adopting uniform prices, then the authorities themselves are setting the worst possible example.
I quote those paragraphs from the Financial Post editorial because I want to refer to them for a moment or two. The Financial Post mentions the wheat board. There is no comparison between the wheat board establishing prices and a group of manufacturers establishing prices. The wheat board is an organization, representing producers, that negotiates the sale of wheat with the government, representing the consumers, and under law. In this editorial reference is made to the fruit growers. In British Columbia we operate under the tree fruit board. That board is established under provincial law. That board operates according to law. All it aims to do is regulate the sale and distribution of the fruit growers' products which have to be sold in a competitive market, to make certain that the grower gets as large a return as the competitive market will permit. The price established by that board and the actions of that board are again subject to review by a provincial marketing board, in the public interest. There is, therefore, no comparison between the boards established by law, representing producers and functioning in selling these commodities, and price maintenance by wholesalers or manufacturers. I think the proof of that statement is found in the results. All you have to do is compare the profits of the monopolists and the manufacturers with the profits or returns of farmers, dairymen, fruit men, wheat growers and all the rest. I think the results indicate who has been exploiting the people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just at my concluding sentence, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At this time we cannot say what will be the effect of the committee or what will be the result of its sitting. We shall have to wait and see. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the report of this committee will support the representations of the great majority of the Canadian people, the great majority of organized labour, organized agriculture, the co-operatives in this country, and the consumers.
Combines Legislation


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Before the minister closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words. At the outset, may I say that I am not going to take very long. I will also say, to start with, that I am much in favour of the government's action in putting the matter of these high prices before a committee of the house rather than acting on the information we have from the MacQuarrie committee. I rose to my feet, however, to put square a couple of matters with respect to which a few hon. members who have spoken before me have sort of clouded the issue. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) seemed to be sincere in what he said; but he skated around for, I think, forty-five minutes and did not do anything to bring down the cost of living. If any man in this house can bring down the cost of housing it is the hon. member for Kootenay West. He produces millions of feet of lumber, and I do not think he sells for one cent less than any of those about whom he has talked.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Kootenay West does not sell a foot of lumber.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Then I will say that the hon. member for Kootenay West produces millions of feet of lumber. Possibly he sells it through some other agency. It is the same thing. He cannot get away from the question in that way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member for Kootenay West does not produce or sell a foot of lumber.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There is also great credit coming to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) for getting up today and skating around the issue as he did. But I should like to correct a statement he made, to the effect that there were many Liberals in Winnipeg who had voted for him. The hon. member had the opportunity of running in an election in 1949. The figures show that he then obtained 6,953 votes and that in 1951 he received 6,009. This goes to show that all the Conservatives did not turn out in 1951. There was also some confusion with regard to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He skated around for an hour and when asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) whether he was in favour of this legislation he did not answer, but when he finally concluded he said he was going to be for it.

Combines Legislation
I have quite a large group of agricultural people in my riding. It is on their behalf that I have risen to speak today. There is an article or two that I should like to quote from the same paper that was brought into the house by the leader of the opposition. I must give the Winnipeg Tribune credit for getting this information for members of parliament who are too lazy to obtain it for ourselves. The issue of Saturday, November 3, has this to say:
Forty per cent auto differential.
Automobiles are close to 40 per cent cheaper in Minneapolis. A Plymouth four-door "Cambridge" model is $1,828 in Minneapolis; $2,522 here.
Many farm implements are considerably cheaper across the line. A Massey-Harris No. 27 self-propelled combine retails for $4,125 and $5,280 in the two cities.
I hope the committee which is set up to investigate these prices does a thorough job, because we in Canada are accepting less today for our wheat than they are in the United States and eastern Canada, and there is no justice in that. I hope the government will put on this committee men, who are really up to date, and will get to the bottom of these prices.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is fated to get into trouble with these combines investigation reports. If I remember correctly this is the second report that has got him into hot water. I think the position, of the government is quite clear on this. Somehow or other the government became conscious of the fact that the people of Canada wanted something done about the high cost of living. Somebody in the cabinet got wise to the fact that the people in Canada were very resentful of the lack of action in that regard on the part of the government. It may have been that the by-elections helped to impress that fact upon the cabinet, but in any case it is quite apparent that on October 1 they had decided that something must be done to allay the public demand for price controls.
The government were not willing to introduce price controls. They felt that the public were demanding some action, and apparently somebody in the cabinet began to look around for some measure which could be thrown to the public as a sop to keep them quiet. It appears that somebody in the cabinet got the idea that price maintenance would serve that purpose, because certainly the MacQuarrie committee were asked for their report before they were ready to give it. They were asked to speed up the report; they were asked to let the minister have an interim report early in

October, before this special session was called. Notwithstanding the fact that the minister made the statement that their report was final, there are several references in the report itself which indicate that they have not completed their investigation. They came forward with this because the public were demanding some measure that would check the rising cost of living. Apparently this measure seemed to fill the bill. No sooner had this been, announced in the speech from the throne than an avalanche of protests descended upon the government. I know I received those protests, and I suppose most hon. members began to receive protests against that legislation.
On the Saturday following the announcement of this legislation in the speech from the throne I spent five or six hours calling on retail merchants in my riding and discus^ sing with them the effect of this legislation upon their business. Before protests had been sent to Ottawa, before the government had said a word about setting up a committee, the retailers with whom I spoke, to a man, were opposed to this. Here is legislation that is designed to check monopolies. It is pointed out in the report that price maintenance does lend itself to certain types of monopolies, and this legislation was designed to check that. But it opens up another question. The question is: will this legislation check monopolies or will it increase them? Every retail druggist in this country, every tobacconist, many hardware people and grocery merchants tell us that if this legislation becomes effective they will be left completely at the mercy of department stores, chain stores and big business generally. I think this is borne out by everyone who knows a small businessman in his municipality or riding. It is not the small businessman in the small town or riding who has been making the fortune out of monopolies; it is not the small businessman who has been benefiting by these rises in prices. Small merchant after merchant has told me that his margin of profit today is not as much as it was in 1949. You have to go back beyond the small retailer in order to deal with this matter.
There is the big question whether legislation such as this would leave the retailer at the mercy of big business which could use its capital to help squeeze the small man out of business. The report recognizes that. It calls attention to the danger that may arise in the matter of loss leaders. The commissioners admit that they had not had time to investigate that fully.
It is quite evident that the government wanted some answer to the rising cost of

living. The government wanted some kind of a report; they wanted it in a hurry, and they got a half-completed report in order that they might hand the public something to make them believe they were trying to do something about prices. That is the situation. Apparently the government is not so sure now that this legislation will do what it thought it would do, that it will serve the purpose they intended it to serve, and we are having a committee set up.
I am not so sure that it is not a good thing in a democracy that the pressure of public opinion can cause the government to change its mind. I think we have two instances where the government has changed its mind since the speech from the throne was delivered. There was no mention in the speech from the throne of the government's intention to bring up the matter of veterans pensions at this session. A great protest was raised across the country against that omission from the speech from the throne. It was only after nearly two weeks of protest in the house that we finally got an announcement from the minister that legislation would be brought in at this session. It would seem to me that this legislation, which the government had not intended to bring in when the speech from the throne was delivered, was introduced as the direct result of public pressure upon the government.
Here we have a case where the government announced its intention of bringing in legislation. There was a protest from a large section of the public. The government is now changing its mind. As I say, I am not sure that it is not a good thing in a democracy when a large section of the public can make its wishes known, and bring them to bear upon the government.
My criticism of the government's position is that they have brought in this measure as a sop to the public, because they have not been willing to introduce price controls and effectively tackle the cost of living problem. I do not know how effective a committee such as that envisaged in the motion will be. I do not know what a committee of the house would be able to find out that the MacQuarrie committee failed to find out. I do not know that we are any better qualified to judge the evidence that would come before us than were members of -the MacQuarrie committee. One thing the committee will do; it will give the government an out. The government is not prepared to come out in the open and say that it has changed its mind with regard to the introduction of this legislation, or that it has discovered that it was wrong. Nor is it willing to bring down a bill
Combines Legislation
so the public and members of the house may see the kind of legislation it has in mind. That legislation might not be very popular in certain parts of the country. So the government passes the buck to a committee of the house, thus providing itself with a very good out.
The matter of price maintenance is not an easy one with which to deal. The United States has had considerable experience with legislation in an effort to prevent price maintenance by manufacturers. A report from a Washington paper dated November 3 has this to say:
Profiteering businessmen thumb their noses at even a supreme court decision. Here is an example . . . Last May the supreme court ruled that no retailer can be compelled to sell at prices fixed by a manufacturer, unless the retailer has signed an agreement to do so. . .
Now the department has launched its first prosecution against "such a conspiracy." It has indicted four big drug wholesalers, three chain stores and a retail druggists' association on charges they are flouting the supreme court decision by fixing prices in the Pittsburgh area.
The matter is a difficult one. There is the big question of what its effect will be upon small retailers, whether or not it will leave them at the mercy of chain stores and departmental stores, and whether in the long run we may end up with greater monopolies than we had when we started. That is the position. It opens up the entire question of just what measures can be taken to enable small business to survive in our so-called free economy. From year to year small businessmen across the country are finding it more difficult to survive in the face of competition from chain stores, departmental stores and the like. They are finding, for instance, that large business can buy at a discount, by which it is enabled to sell at prices lower than those at which the small merchant can buy from wholesalers. The practice of increasing the discount in, proportion to the quantity of goods purchased gives the larger stores an advantage.
Small businessmen are wondering what is to be the outcome. On other occasions I have asked in the house that the government set up a committee for the purpose of studying the position, of the small businessman, to see what measures can be taken. If we wish to preserve the small businessman in our so-called free economy, then some measures must be taken to protect him and at the same time enable him to render the peculiar type of service he can render to the community. I have asked that a committee of the house should be set up to study the whole matter of small business. I would suggest that if such a committee is set up, it be given the right to study the whole field of small business, in competition with big business, to

Combines Legislation
see what measures can be taken to prevent their being gobbled up, leaving the public at the mercy of the combines.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Perhaps it would be well to call it 6.15.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote for this resolution, but I thought I would like to detain the house for not more than a few minutes just to make some comments on it. I do not vote for it because I anticipate any great results, but merely because it seems to me more sensible to vote for it than to vote against it. I do not find it in my heart to vote against it though I feel that would result in delay and precious little actual accomplishment. Of course, as has been pointed out-I do not propose to dwell on this-it is perfectly clear that the government has backed away from its original intention. The government encouraged the people to hope that they would be able to bring in measures which would be effective, and now the confident tone of October 9 has degenerated into the rather feeble quaver of November 6. I do not propose to detain the house by saying more about that.
What I really wish to stress is the condition of the great problem that afflicts us all, in connection with which there has been no constructive treatment and no sign of constructive treatment since we have met here. Most grievances tend to wear out. People talk about them for a week or a month or perhaps six months, but gradually they wear out and people begin to talk about something else. The difference about this cost of living business is that it does not wear out. The people become more and more acutely conscious of it. It is for that reason that I wish to say a few words.
As I said, the people hoped from the speech from the throne that something might be done. They hoped for at least a crumb of comfort from the table. Not only has that crumb disappeared, they are alarmed that things may get worse. There have been a number of prophecies from the government benches that things would be better. Back through the years the confident hope has been expressed that prices were going down. There have been many confident hopes, the last being expressed in the past few months, that prices would not go any higher. Of course we all know the result; that they have continued stubbornly to go up.

It has been suggested that the government is callous about this. I do not for one moment suggest that the government is callous in the ordinary sense of that word. Members of the government are people just like the rest of us. But I do suggest that they have become perplexed and are utterly unable to deal with this problem. To the best of my recollection there have been only two attempts made by the government in the debate on the speech from the throne to deal with this in a serious way at all. One was by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other was by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair).
The Prime Minister referred at some length to the United Kingdom, and compared our situation with theirs. Frankly it seemed to me that as the conditions are so different the comparison was not helpful. Then we had a comparison between Canadian and United States prices based to a considerable extent on inquiries or observations which the Prime Minister had made in Washington. I think that comparison proved to be of little avail, not because one questioned the accuracy of the figures but because they were not typical or comparative in the strict sense. I felt that this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), with his carefully prepared comparative figures as between Minneapolis and Winnipeg, knocked the figures of the Prime Minister into a cocked hat.
Then we come to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I always like hearing him speak. I thought his footwork on that particular day was very good. But I venture to draw to his attention what I think is a rather serious mistake. He stated that the spending money had increased two and a half times since 1939 whereas the amount of goods had increased only twice. I have stated several times in this house, and I have never heard it questioned, that the actual increase in spending power was not two and a half but four times. We have four times as much spending power as we had. I suggest that is a serious mistake which he would do well to correct.
I think the hon. member's speech was quite a good diagnosis of the situation, but what the public want is not a diagnosis; they want a cure. There was no cure indicated. We were told to grin and bear it, to hope that the economic laws would help us out of our difficulties in the long run. I am not going to deal at length on this except to say that I think the public is disturbed and alarmed to a degree. I think it is fair to say that they have had nothing from the government in the last month except negation.

I need not repeat in this house what I have said before, that I am not suggesting any over-all retail price control, but on the other hand I do not accept the view that absolutely nothing can be done in the way of direct controls. Neither did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) hold that view when he spoke in this house in September, 1950. I have referred several times to the indications he then gave that if war spending resulted in sending prices up through the ceiling he would take steps to control allocations and prices. He was asking for powers to do that. During this session I have asked if we might have a statement as to what had been done in that direction, but in so far as I am aware no statement has been made.
It is customary to speak sneeringly and contemptuously about what has been done through direct controls in the United States. I am not one to say there is anything like a record of success there; I think it has been disappointing, but on the other hand it is interesting to note that the situation in the United States is better than it is here. Most of the competent people to whom I have access do not believe that direct controls have been useless. They think the indirect controls were much more useful, but they do not discard direct controls entirely. I was surprised the other day to read a memorandum produced by some serious United States businessmen in which they stated that they did not wash out direct controls. They feared the impact of new defence buying and that there might be a forward surge of prices. They did not accept the idea that if new pressures arose nothing could be done. I might interject to say that view is also held by competent economists. Their idea is that if controls are to be used they should be used on key commodities and at the source. They do not accept the view that nothing can be done.
The point I wish to make is that if nothing is done, and if there is a new surge of pressure and prices begin rising steeply, we might have such an excitement of public opinion, the public might become so desperate that action of some kind, perhaps precipitate action, might have to be taken. For this reason I feel deep regret that at this session the government seems to have been able to find nothing better than this resolution with its delays and uncertainties.


Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word in this debate which is now in its second day. I listened carefully to all the speeches made last Friday and today, and in all my experience in this house I have never witnessed the official
Combines Legislation
opposition put on such an exhibition of shadow-boxing as they have in this debate. When their official spokesman spoke last Friday he left the impression in his opening remarks that he and his party were most anxious to proceed with the legislation on price maintenance; and so that I will not place a false or inaccurate interpretation on his words I will quote them. At page 665 of Hansard for November 2 he said, in opening his remarks:
Surely there is no justification ... to fail to give leadership and to carry into effect the optimistic promise in the speech from the throne.
He left the impression that the earnest desire of the opposition was that the government should proceed with the legislation respecting price maintenance without delay. This was echoed to a certain degree by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon when he repeatedly said: Why should we wait for a double play? However, I remembered the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) earlier in the session in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At that time his interpretation was slightly different and did not convey the same impression. If hon. members will go back to page 121 of Hansard they will find that the hon. member in question, rather than being anxious to get legislation on the matter, was rather dubious as to the merits of the proposed legislation, and as a matter of fact almost categorically opposed it when he was speaking for himself. At that time he said:
I suggest that such legislation-and I speak only for myself-if introduced, and price maintenance represents less than 4 per cent of retail sales in this dominion, can have an effect exceedingly detrimental to the independent, small businessmen in this country.
He continued along that line, which would indicate that he had grave doubts as to the merits of the legislation. Of course when he spoke last Friday on the same subject he was not as specific as he was in the first place, no doubt because this time he was speaking for the whole of the official opposition. On that occasion he automatically took the position-and I think this is a fair interpretation of his remarks-that there was no need to introduce any new legislation whatsoever because all the authority necessary was already contained in the Combines Investigation Act. I should like to refer to page 666 of Hansard for November 2, 1951, where he said:
If what one reads be true, and resale maintenance is taking place by agreement, there is available in the statute now the power to enforce the law.
All the way through his argument he followed along with the idea that there is no

Combines Legislation
need for any legislation because the matter is already covered, and he went at great length into the merits of examining the Combines Investigation Act as such. On that day there were other speakers from the official opposition. The next one was the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who merely followed the same line and expressed very grave doubts as to the merits of such legislation. At page 684 of Hansard he said:
I believe the government put out this publicity

He was referring to the fact that legislation was announced in the speech from the throne.
-concerning the possibility of legislation against price maintenance agreements in the hope of starting a price war and therefore being able to say, "Look, we have now given relief against the high cost of living." They had no regard for the dangers and evil consequences which attend such price wars.
Again he went on to say:
The government is in the uncomfortable position of having committed itself to a course which it finds now is not only unpopular, but which it seems is highly unlikely to produce beneficial results.
It is hard to understand that anybody would like to see the immediate implementation of legislation which in their opinion is highly unlikely to produce beneficial results. If one examines the remarks of all other speakers from the official opposition in the same debate, one finds that the same trend of thought has been followed all the way through. In other words they have expressed their opposition to any legislation being brought down, but at the same time have pressed that this legislation should be enacted without further delay. Then to crown their illogical attitude they turn around and say that instead of referring just the one question of price maintenance to a committee we should alter the framework of the order of reference of the committee to embody the whole of the Combines Investigation Act. They go on to say that the proposal of the government is a repudiation of the MacQuarrie report.
If to refer the interim report to a committee is repudiating it, by the same token how can you explain asking the committee to consider the whole of the combines question, a matter which is still under study by the MacQuarrie committee? In other words they are asking us to consider what the committee has not reported on yet, and not consider what it has reported on. Therefore it is quite obvious that in this case the opposition is trying to pretend that they are not either for or against a committee, and refuse to take a position. I thought the situation would be clarified this afternoon when the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) asked the leader of the opposition a question. In passing I should like to say

that the hon. member for Moose Jaw made an excellent speech this afternoon, and when I refer to the opposition generally I want to exclude him from my remarks because he did not pussyfoot around. He stated his-position quite clearly and asked a most pertinent question of the leader of the opposition. I thought we would surely have some light on the matter. However, the leader of the opposition simply dismissed the question as being quite irrelevant to the subjeot.
Therefore we must go by the record that is already on Hansard and according to that it does not really seem that the opposition is very keen to have the legislation brought forward. Not only that; but apparently they are not even ready to have the matter brought before a committee. As one who would like to see the question put before a committee, and who sincerely believes that such a committee on this subject can do a job and get very valuable information across to the public, I think it is high time that the opposition stated where they stand. They should say if they want to oppose it. If they do not wish to take any position that is also their privilege, but at least they should say so and allow us to go on with the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat accused the Progressive Conservative party of shadow-boxing in the house on this issue. That is a charge with which I agree, and I shall say something in a few minutes to support that view. But may I suggest that we are really witnessing an excellent example of the pot and the kettle calling each other black. It is true that the official opposition has stated that it wants the whole matter of combines legislation gone into but refuses to say where it stands on the issue of resale price maintenance. On the other hand, however, the way the government is handling this matter surely makes it necessary for them to face up to the charge that they are stalling. The plain fact of the matter is that with a great blare of trumpets the government announced to the house and the country that legislation based upon the report of the MacQuarrie committee was to be presented this session. This was stated categorically in the speech from the throne. In a radio broadcast during the first week parliament was in session the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) referred to that legislation, and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to it as the one and only item thus far which the government proposed for dealing with the high cost of living.
There was no suggestion in any of these initial announcements that this matter was to be put through a delaying process by referring

the subject to a joint committee of both houses of parliament. Despite the categorical statement that the house would proceed with this legislation, we have had this change of strategy on the part of the government. As my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) pointed out this afternoon, organizations speaking for millions of Canadians have expressed the view that this legislation should be proceeded with without delay. He pointed out that those organizations include farm groups, trade union groups, the Canadian association of consumers, the national council of women and other similar organizations. On the other hand the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has asked that there be a delay in connection with this matter, and it seems as though their voice has been listened to rather than the voices that represent millions of Canadians.
There are those on the government side who no doubt believe that the purpose of referring this matter to a committee is to bring all the facts into the open. But we had a Liberal speaker this afternoon, in the person of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon), who supported the idea of the committee, not just so that more facts could be ascertained, but because he felt there was some question as to whether or not this legislation should be proceeded with. In other words, he appears to be against it. I suggest that there is disunity in the Liberal ranks concerning this legislation; and for the government, which has so much to say about what it must do under our responsible government set-up, to adopt this course is to make it possible for this legislation to be delayed indefinitely.
Whereas we have on the one hand the government changing its strategy and adopting a course that is clearly one of delay, on the other we have the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, complaining very loudly about that delay. But they do so in a manner that makes it appear to me as though they really welcomed it. The other day the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who complained about this delay, proposed an amendment which, if it had been in order and had carried, would have resulted in the work of that committee lasting three or four or ten times as long. In other words any dealing with this immediate issue would have been put out of court completely so far as this session is concerned. It certainly looked to me as though the official opposition really welcomed this delay, in fact as though they hoped the impending delay might make it unnecessary for them to come to a decision 94699-491
Combines Legislation
at this session as to where they stand on the question of legislation concerning resale price maintenance.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) has already referred to the way the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) evaded the direct question put to him this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). May I take just a moment to spell out the terms of that evasion? The hon. member for Moose Jaw asked the leader of the opposition quite clearly whether or not he supported the proposed legislation concerning resale price maintenance. The leader of the opposition was quite clever in the way he handled the question. He said "What legislation? We have no legislation; we have not seen it. I am not going to be put in the position of making a comment on legislation we have not seen." That is a very plausible answer, but a reference to Hansard will show that shortly before the leader of the opposition made that answer he had read, as part of his argument with the Prime Minister, the two paragraphs dealing with this matter that appear in the speech from the throne. He read them from page 2 of Hansard for October 9, and I shall re-read the second of those two paragraphs:
The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending-
And note this; it is very clear:
-that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
True, Mr. Speaker, we do not have a bill before us, but we know very clearly from those words in the speech from the throne which the leader of the opposition read this afternoon what the principle of that legislation is to be, if it ever sees the light of day. I may point out that those sentences from the speech from the throne are a faithful representation of what the MacQuarrie committee recommended. On page 21 of the report on resale price maintenance I find this:
The committee, therefore, recommends that it should be made an offence for a manufacturer or other supplier:
1.	To recommend or prescribe minimum resale prices for his products;
2.	To refuse to sell, to withdraw a franchise or to take any other form of action as a means of enforcing minimum resale prices.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, that is the recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee, and in a still smaller nutshell the government has put it into the speech from the throne. I believe I should take just a moment to read the next sentence from the MacQuarrie report. It follows right after the

Combines Legislation
recommendation. By stating, in negative terms, what the committee was not recommending it helps to pinpoint what the committee does recommend. The sentence reads:
It is to be noted that the committee does not recommend that it be made an offence to prescribe and enforce resale prices which are not minimum. It follows that suppliers would be free to suggest and enforce maximum resale prices.
In other words what the committee recommended is quite clear. They are not against the suppliers of goods saying to the retailers that there is a maximum above which you must not sell these goods. They are not against a suggested price, but they are against the suppliers of goods fixing a minimum resale price below which those goods cannot be sold. It seems to me that for the leader of the opposition to hide behind the fact that we do not have the legislation, or in other words a bill, as an excuse for not answering the direct question of the member for Moose Jaw, is not good enough. We know what the issue is that is being presented to us by the government. It is quite clear in the speech from the throne; and if there is any doubt as to what those words mean there they are spelled out in the report. It seems to me that, as members of this house, we ought to know whether or not we support that principle recommended to us by the MacQuarrie committee. I, for one, do support that principle and feel that legislation of that kind should be brought in.
Incidentally, I have been interested in reading back through some of the earlier literature on this subject. I find that across the years opinions have been expressed on resale price maintenance. In particular I have in my hand a copy of the report made by Mr. McGregor on an investigation into an alleged combine in the distribution of tobacco products in the province of Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. This report was made on August 31, 1938, and contains a lengthy section dealing with resale price maintenance, with particular reference to tobacco products but touching also on all its ramifications. In that report Mr. McGregor said quite clearly, though I cannot turn up the page at the moment, that there is no doubt but that resale price maintenance is anti-social in its effects. In that report he also discussed the whole legal position which was discussed the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred. He wondered whether it was not possible to do something about resale price maintenance under the Combines Investigation Act as it stood. But at any rate

he took the position then quite clearly that resale price maintenance was anti-social in its effect on our economy.
He also went on to say that the quantitative result of resale price maintenance varied according to conditions in different parts of the country and with respect to different products. In other words he admitted that this was an evil thing, that it was anti-social, and he so stated in his report; but whether or not it was a matter of great concern, the first evil to attack, was another question. That leads me to say this. I feel that the Prime Minister was perfectly correct in his remarks on October 15 when he said that he doubted whether this resale price maintenance legislation would have any substantial effect on the cost of living index. Similarly I agree with the position taken this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), when he said that it did not seem to him as though it would have a great effect on the cost of living index and neither would it have a great effect on the position of small retailers in this country. In other words we are having quite a tempest in a teapot. We are having quite a fuss over something that is not going to make a great deal of difference. In that respect I share the spirit of disappointment expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) when he spoke earlier this evening, in that this is a small offering for the government of Canada to make to the Canadian people who are so beset by and so greatly concerned with rising prices at this time.
To get back to the shadow-boxing that is going on between the two old parties in this house, I noted this afternoon that not only did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) skate around the question as to where he stood on the issue of resale price maintenance but also, as he so often does, he took plenty of time to berate the government for not doing something about the rising cost of living. I listened very closely but I did not hear this afternoon a single suggestion on his part as to what the government should do to cope with the rising cost of living.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have you any suggestions?


Major James William Coldwell: We have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our position has been clear across the years. We feel that the government should come at this problem directly with a program of price controls and subsidies. I want to say that I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) tonight say something which surprised me a bit. As a matter of fact, when he was speaking I was making notes,

and was getting ready to answer him. I was almost sure of what he was going to say from there on. I turned around to my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and said: "There is our friend from Greenwood doing just what the leader of the opposition did this afternoon. He is complaining that the government has no cure, but he will not suggest one himself". But to his credit I will say that he did not stay quite in that same no man's land which the leader of the opposition stayed in. He said that so far as he was concerned, while he was not asking for an over-all program of direct controls, he did not wash out completely the idea of some direct controls as a means of attacking this problem. Coming from a party which is inherently and traditionally against controls, I think that statement by the hon. member for Greenwood must be given weight. It was not made lightly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have said it before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that the hon. member has said it before. I am saying it was not made lightly and should not be treated lightly. When an hon. member like the hon. member for Greenwood, a member of the Progressive Conservative party, makes that statement and makes it in this session when the rest of his party members are not saying what should be done, and are opposing controls, I say the government ought to give consideration to it.
As he pointed out, direct controls are being used to a certain extent in the United States, and to some advantage. Reference already has been made to that matter. I have here the same front page of the Winnipeg Tribune of last Saturday to which other hon. members have referred, with its comparison of prices as between Minneapolis and Winnipeg. As I say, reference has been made to that matter; and it is fairly clear that even the Americans have credit coming to them for taking the view that the high cost of living is not a problem about which nothing can be done. They do not take that hopeless view. They feel that something must be done, even if it is something with which the financial wizards in that country do not in spirit or in principle agree. I suggest that when that proposal comes, as it has come tonight, from the hon. member for Greenwood, on top of the silence this afternoon of the leader of the opposition with respect to any cure, it is time for the government to reconsider its whole position with respect to this problem of the still rising cost of living, with the index now away up to 190-4,
Combines Legislation
which puts the value of the Canadian dollar, in terms of purchasing power on the 1935-39 basis, right down to 52 cents.
In the light of the magnitude of the problem and in the light of all the evidence that is piling up to show that a direct solution is necessary, for the government to come in with this one proposal which even the Prime Minister said would not have a substantial effect on the cost of living index-and that is an understatement-and then to follow that proposal with this strategy that will result in delay is something that I say is reprehensible. With the official opposition taking the position they do, making it clear that they do not want to say whether they are for or against legislation with respect to resale price maintenance, I wonder if the government realizes that to refer this matter to a committee with members on it who feel that way, with members on it from the other place, and with the delegations that will appear before the committee, will simply mean that this one little dent the government thought it would make in the high cost of living is not likely to be made at this session of parliament; and there is no telling what will happen to it as the result of that committee's report. There is also no telling what will happen if this session comes to an end before that committee completes its work.
There is another aspect of this matter about which I should like to say a few words. When I look at this approach of the government, this attack upon resale price maintenance- which, as I say, Mr. McGregor pointed out was anti-social and which I think should be corrected it looks to me like the old case of putting in jail the man who steals a loaf of bread but giving a title to the man who steals a coal mine. Our social and economic history is full of that sort of thing. For example, I hold in my hand a copy of one of the many McGregor reports. This is the one that was entitled "Canada and International Cartels" made in 1945 by Mr. McGregor, who was then commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, with the assistance of a number of leading men in this country. If the government really wants to put the axe at the foot of a tree that needs to be cut down, let them act on the recommendations in that report. There is a report which sets out anti-social practices that put completely in the shade any of the evils that arise from resale price maintenance.
Hon. members will recall some of the sections of this report. Mr. McGregor and his associates went into the nature of international trade combinations and gave us many examples of the effect of international

Combines Legislation
cartels on Canada's trade position. He took specific commodities: fertilizer, nitrogen, phosphorus, tanning materials, flat glass, sulphur, dyestuffs, tools, magnesium, titanium products, and so on. In that section there is a paragraph in which he pointed out that these are examples which show what international cartels do to Canada's trade position. The point he was making was that, despite the laws or policies the government itself may lay down regarding trade, this was all offset and interfered with by a group of people not responsible to the laws of this or any other country.
Then Mr. McGregor went on to give us examples of cartel arrangements restricting Canadian manufacturers to home markets on an exclusive basis. He gave us a number of examples. Hon. members may recall in particular the example of electric lamps. I quote a sentence or two from pages 22 and 23:
In such an important factor as the length of life, the specifications for lamp construction appear to have been drawn up in the interests of manufacturers. Long life bulbs which have been produced in other countries, in Holland for example, are not permitted to be marketed in Canada.
A little later, on page 23, Mr. McGregor quotes from something a General Electric engineer wrote to executives of the company in which he pointed out that they had deliberately made decisions as to how long their flashlight batteries would be made to last. Similarly, on that page there is an interesting paragraph on the way in which these monopolistic controls delayed the development of fluorescent lighting in Canada. Then we come down to radio tubes and sets, and Mr. McGregor states:
Arrangements of a like character exist with respect to the allocation of world markets for radio sets and radio tubes.
Over on page 24 he says again:
Until 1939 Canadian consumers were deprived of low-priced radio sets of a type which had been available in the United States for a considerable period. The immediate bar to production had been certain limitations under the electrical code but, as the specifications had been drawn up after consultation with the industry and were subsequently modified after the tariff board made its findings, it would appear that the restrictions were not unrelated to the limitation of competition in the Canadian market.
I say again resale price maintenance is little stuff compared with what these international monopolies, these international cartels, have been doing to keep up the cost of living and to keep alive the old game of profiteering. Mr. McGregor went on to deal with matches, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and I shall quote a sentence or two there:
International Nickel has since maintained a policy of a fixed price for nickel in United States funds

and its sales and distribution polices appear to have been accepted by the few other minor nickel producers.
Then he dealt with steel, and there is an interesting paragraph on the reservation of the Canadian market for certain classes of pipes and tubing. The next chapter is on aluminum and it includes this comment:
In view of the monopolistic character of the aluminum industry in most producing countries and the national interests involved, some positive form of intergovernmental action may be required in this field in the post-war period to avoid undue restriction of production by more efficient plants through understandings between dominant firms ot efforts by individual states to protect high-cost manufacturers.
Mr. McGregor then, went on to deal with acetic acid, radium, and newsprint. Incidentally, he points out in the section on newsprint that that section is a little out of keeping with the rest of the chapter because with respect to the other items they are clearly international cartels, but with respect to newsprint it is a cartel all right but pretty well run from the Canadian scene because of the large control of newsprint exercised by Canadians in that industry.
The next chapter deals with international affiliations of Canadian companies. Andi so the report goes on. It is just loaded with things the government could do if they were really anxious to do something about profiteering, about high prices, about monopolistic practices. I agree that resale price maintenance is a practice about which something should be done. I have answered that quite clearly. I did not try to escape it the way the leader of the opposition did, but it is a picayune matter compared with what has been on. the desk of the Minister of Justice, since long before he came there, in this report made by Mr. McGregor and those who worked with him in its preparation.
At the conclusion of chapter 3 on page 53 Mr. McGregor suggested:
In considering present and possible remedies against cartel practices associated with patents which affect Canadian trade or the Canadian consumer, it is important to remember that Canada cannot apply any remedy provided by its patent law to any patent except a Canadian patent and cannot apply any remedy provided by its criminal law against undue restraints of trade to any concern except one which is doing business in Canada and is thereby within the reach of Canadian criminal process.
On the basis of that he goes on to point out that this government will have to take this matter up with other governments, and in the last sentence of that chapter he says:
The prevention of abuses arising out of the restrictive features of international patent agreement must be achieved through measures of intergovernmental collaboration in regard to international

cartels generally, as such use of patent rights is merely one of the restrictive controls resulting from cartelization.
The next chapter is headed: "The need for an effective policy". Mr. McGregor admits that this is a difficult field in which to do something, but he took the responsibility of making some very positive suggestions. For example, over on page 59 we find the following:
This effort-
That is the effort to curtail monopolies by investigating them.
This effort represents, however, only one aspect of public policy and in certain circumstances it cannot be expected to succeed unless accompanied by effective action in other ways to remove private restrictions on production and distribution. Other means of public control should be developed which could be invoked in those special cases where the Combines Investigation Act would not prove the appropriate remedy. Prosecution is not the only remedy for abuses of monopoly, as past and present legislation indicates. Parliament possesses powers in such matters as tariffs, patents, trade-marks, taxation, public regulation and public ownership, which may be invoked to safeguard the public interest.
Just think of all the suggestions that are before this government, all the things it could do to cope with the problem of the high cost of living to get at prevalent profiteering. Instead, they pick out this one little thing, resale price maintenance; anti-social, yes, but just a little aspect, and they refer even that to a committee, rather than bringing in the bill. I continue:
Too often in the past each field of legislation or control has been regarded as separate from the others. The experience of the war has shown that in many instances desired policy can be put into effect only by related and co-ordinated activity in a number of major fields of government administration. This lesson should not be lost sight of when direct controls are dropped.
This of course was before the program of wartime controls was over. However, down on the same page I quote again:
Consideration should be given to the use of taxation as a means of providing more effective control over the operations of monopolies.
I remind hon. members that this whole book is dealing with international cartels, international monopolies. Mr. McGregor has admitted the difficulty of dealing with them because they are a group of people who regard themselves as above the law of any land; yet he has this concrete suggestion to make:
If special taxation within federal powers could be devised which would serve as an incentive to the full use of available productive capacity and render it less profitable for corporations to leave capacity unused in order to maintain prices, such taxation would tend to check undue restriction of output by monopolistic groups.
The next chapter is entitled: "Current proposals for the control of cartels." Then we
Combines Legislation
come to the last one, "Conclusions and recommendations." Here are a number of conclusions and recommendations. They have never been referred to a committee, much less embodied in legislation.
At page 66, speaking of monopolistic arrangements, Mr. McGregor says:
In part, such arrangements have been attempts to cope with the situations created by demoralized commodity markets,-
And note this:
-but they also appear to represent attempts by heavily capitalized industries to protect themselves against the risks to investment created by rapid technological changes.
There is a world of study in that sentence. It runs through the whole of Mr. McGregor's report. The idea is this, that when these large corporations with their great investments see technological improvements coming along, they would prefer to keep things as they are so as to retain their profits rather than accept changes and have the benefits of those changes passed on to the people through lower prices and a higher standard of living.
Then there is the suggestion as to finding ways and means to prevent private business organized as cartels from supplanting government in the establishment of the government-proposed commercial policies. There are three or four further suggestions. It is recommended that official government records be set up which would show from time to time any significant change in the degree of financial control which corporations outside Canada exercise over individual domestic companies. Then later on, having urged that the powers of the combines investigation commission be widened and that it would be given a chance to do a job, Mr. McGregor said this:
To do this it will be necessary to recruit and train an adequate staff and to provide appropriations sufficient to enable the oganization to function effectively.
Then he calls for an integrated program with particular regard to all these different facets of government policy that could bring to bear some influence upon questions of prices and profits, and the extent to which goods produced in our economy get through to our people at reasonable and proper prices.
I stress the point that in this whole problem it is not good enough to deal with something just superficial, something that is just on the fringe. We have to get to the heart of the matter and ask why it is that in a modern economy, with the huge productive capacity we have and with the effectiveness of labour power, our people should have so much difficulty getting back the things they produce

Combines Legislation
at prices they can afford to pay. It is pretty clear from Mr. McGregor's report that international monopolistic practices have a great deal to do with that. As I say, he suggested ways and means by which something could be done to counteract this condition. The last of the suggestions which I would draw to the attention of the house is his proposal that the government of Canada should give its support to the establishment of an international office to deal with cartels, in connection with the economic and social council of the United Nations.
I will agree with Mr. McGregor that it is not only a Canadian problem. As he has pointed out, there are many things the Canadian government could do on its own, through the use of various statements of government policy. But in addition to that the government could take a real lead, in cooperation with other nations throughout the world, to try to reach a stage where the affairs of democratic nations would be run by the governments of those nations, and not by private organizations.
A good deal has been said today about the way in which this whole business of combines investigation has been handled, particularly in the last few years. We have had quite a number of reports; I have half a dozen on my desk. They are good reports. A few of them have resulted in prosecutions, with nominal fines. Those of us who were in the house at the time cannot quite forget what happened when one of these reports was made, namely the report on the flour milling industry. We recall that it was held for several months, and was finally tabled in the house only after some members over in this corner happened to learn about it. We recall that debate, and recall the way the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to our way of thinking let parliament down through not having fulfilled his obligation under the law to table the report months before.
Now we have a similar story, with the suggestion made that parliament do something about resale price maintenance, only to have the whole idea referred to a committee instead. If the government has made up its mind that this committee has to be set up, there is no option but to let the government go ahead with it. But I hope the members of the committee will do a real job and that they will call as witnesses the people who should be called, including some of the big manufacturers. They should be asked pointed and direct questions, and be required to answer them.
Then I say the committee should expedite its work and get its report back to the house as soon as possible. It should not give in

to any delaying or slowing down tactics, but we should have at least this little bit of legislation at the present session. I say again it is only a drop in the bucket. What we need immediately to attack the problems of the high cost of living is a direct attack through price controls and subsidies. What we need, on the long-range basis, is an analysis of the whole situation and a solution along the lines suggested by Mr. McGregor in the report from which I have quoted this evening.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be much competition, so far as speaking in this debate is concerned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have
had our turn.


Clarence Gillis: But an awful lot have not. I
would not complain if this debate continued for the remainder of the session, provided something were done to remedy this problem by that time.
The government surprises me when it suggests setting up another committee. The question of prices is not a new one. We need to think back only to the late thirties, when the price spreads commission was set up under the leadership of Hon. Harry Stevens. We remember the evidence he brought out, evidence of monopolies, social conditions and all that sort of thing. We know what happened to him, too: he went to the archives to gather dust because he tramped on the toes of the then prime minister. So that was what happened to the price spreads commission. If any evidence was necessary to convince any honest-thinking Canadian that some regulation of prices or some supervision over those who sell was necessary, certainly they must have been convinced by the report of the price spreads commission.
But we were not satisfied with that. The war came along and it proved to us that some regulation over the economy was necessary. We instituted price controls, and they worked most effectively. The war closed, and back came the slogan of free enterprise, private enterprise. The government realized the condition in 1940, when after suggesting on a basis of patriotism and because of the world situation that there should be a limitation on the profits written into war contracts, it became the duty of the then minister of munitions and supply to inform the house that the government had to remove the profit limitation in order to get anyone to take a war contract.
Surely that should have proven to the people of Canada, and to members in the

house who are conscious of this development, that some regulation is necessary in this day and age. I am not surprised by the attitude of the official opposition nor by that of the government when I remember the conditions since 1945, when the agitation began in the house to remove the controls. When you attempt to regulate prices you are hitting at the citadel of free enterprise, you are affecting the status quo of free enterprise, that inflexible system that refuses to change despite world conditions. When you start to examine prices, even under the type of legislation recommended by this committee, you are merely starting at the fringe of the forest. If you follow it through you are bound to wind up in the midst of world cartels and monopolies.
I am certain that when the government began to examine the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee someone convinced them that they were rather dangerous, that if they took the first step they would be pushed into the next one and ultimately this inflexible piece of machinery, this house of cards that is being brought down around their ears through their own actions, would be exposed. In my opinion the government are ill advised not to follow through on the recommendations made by the MacQuarrie committee.
We had the Stevens report. A lot of people remember that report. Then we had the experience of controls during the war. A lot of people remember them. Then we had the official opposition hammering at the government to take off the controls. The government said they could not remove them too fast, but they would be removed as fast as possible. There has never been any conflict between the two parties on that particular point. Then the MacQuarrie committee was set up. What were they supposed to do? They were supposed to examine the evidence submitted to the committee on prices set up in 1948. That committee heard a lot of evidence. These four learned gentlemen who were divorced from any business connections, headed by an eminent judge, were appointed to examine the evidence of the committee on prices. Mr. Justice MacQuarrie, the chairman, was formerly attorney general of Nova Scotia. His honesty and integrity have never been questioned. After examining all that evidence this committee made two recommendations, suggested two simple things that should be done. These have been placed on the record before. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just referred to them. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) elaborated on them.
Combines Legislation
This committee made two anaemic recommendations which the government considered and decided to accept. In the throne speech they said that legislation on resale price maintenance would be brought in based on the interim report of this committee. Then the invisible government came along and said that they could not do that because then they would get through the little trees to the middle of the forest. They were told that this would affect the manufacturers, the big fellows at the top. So the government decided to appoint another committee to examine the evidence of the committee which had been appointed to examine the evidence of another committee. Before long there will be so many committees that we will not be able to keep track of them, let alone their recommendations.
I do not think that this is good enough. The increase in prices is hitting at the very roots of our democracy. It is ruining our productive machine. We must not forget for one moment that it was inflation and unemployment and the refusal of those at the top to be flexible, to change with the times, that gave us Hitler and Mussolini. We do not want to forget for a moment that Europe went down to ashes because of the inability of those in control to change with the times.
That kind of situation is not peculiar to any part of the world or to any particular people; it is the product of the system. Unfortunately we have not learned anything from the lessons of the last fifteen years. Inflation and the lowering of living standards cause the people to lose confidence in their administrators and create the most dangerous weapon we have to face. It hits every sector of our society. If it was only the lack of purchasing power for food, fuel and shelter it would not be so bad, but it affects health conditions and all that sort of thing which shakes the base of our whole economy.
I have in. my hand a recent newspaper clipping stating that nine thousand workers have been laid off at Oshawa. Why were they laid off?. I shall not read all the clipping, but the pertinent part is as follows:
The official said the one-day interruption in production was due to a materials shortage "beyond the control of the company." He said the Steel Company of Canada was not able to deliver immediately the allotment of steel at the rate which had been contracted some time ago.
Prices again. The automobile industry is idle because the steel industry which supplies them with material wants a price increase. They are told that they cannot or will not supply the steel at the rate decided on when they went into production on that particular

Combines Legislation
type of vehicle. So there is a lay-off in the automobile industry. That is not peculiar to Oshawa; it is worse in, Windsor.


Mr. Hellyer:: Was that the rate for material or the price rate?


Clarence Gillis: It was the price of the material.


An hon. Member:: No.


Clarence Gillis: I am making this speech; you have all the rest of this evening and tomorrow to answer it. I am reading this article and interpreting it. You can take a look at it some other time and make a speech then. The steel industry wanted a price increase. It was the increase in the price of steel that started the whole spiral of inflation in 1946, when they demanded an increase of $5 per ton on basic steel which meant about $12 per ton on fabricated steel. Up went the prices of farm machinery and everything else. As I said in the throne speech debate the trouble in the automobile industry is not wholly the result of restrictions imposed by the government on the purchase of automobiles. It goes back to steel. The results were felt all through our economy by the people who produce the things we wear, the things we eat and so on. This condition is not peculiar to the automobile industry; I just referred to that as an example.
Let us take a look at the health of the nation. I have a recent clipping from the Ottawa Journal containing a statement by Dr. H. B. Church of Aylmer, Quebec, who was commenting on the lack of general practitioners across the country. Do not forget that the general practitioner is the type of doctor who looks after about 90 per cent of our population. Dr. Church sums up the picture by saying that the young men all want to become specialists. The article continues:
"The student forgets the specialist was once a general practitioner," Dr. Church said. "The young medic is after the Tong green' and he goes where he can find the best living for the least effort."
That adds up to prices again. The young doctor coming out of university-and the chances are that he borrowed his last two years' tuition fee-in years gone by could reasonably be expected to go to the rural districts and outlying sections of the country and work up a practice, thereby gaining a lot of experience. The costs were low and the medical fees were low. A doctor was available in most communities, but in the last ten years particularly that is not the case. The young doctor graduating today has to make quite an investment in order to set up an office with the necessary equipment. He finds he is not able to do that. None of these doctors are able to go out as general medical

practitioners and make their services available where they get the best education. They graduate from the universities with some theoretical knowledge, but the best education is obtained in actual practice among people who need their services. Doctors are not in a position to do that today, and I think the statement by Dr. Church is absolutely correct. In order to live, doctors are driven into centres where they can obtain some specialized training or to hospitals where fees are higher and people have money to pay for their services. As a result the general health of the nation has suffered. It is all because of unregulated prices with no effort made to do anything about them.
I still think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would be well advised to consider this matter. What is he proposing to do? First of all a committee of the House of Commons studied the whole question of prices, and as a result of that evidence specialists were secured. A learned judge was appointed to preside and there were also three professors who no doubt are good men in their fields. They examined all the evidence and their recommendations were-it will do no harm to put this on the record again-as follows:
The committee, therefore, recommends that it should be made an offence for a manufacturer or other supplier:
1.	To recommend or prescribe minimum resale prices for his products;
2.	To refuse to sell, to withdraw a franchise or to take any other form of action as a means of enforcing minimum resale prices.
These very learned people decided that is what should be done. What does the Minister of Justice say? He says their opinion is not good enough. He says we are going to have to appoint a committee of twenty-six members from the House of Commons and the other place. The members of that committee have their correspondence to look after. They have to do the work of their constituencies and sit in the house until eleven or twelve at night. They are going to examine the findings of these learned gentlemen. How many members of that committee of twenty-six- and I say this with all respect

are qualified to sit in judgment on recommendations made by Mr. Justice MacQuarrie and the other members of that committee?


Mr. Blackmore:: How many will be there every time?


Clarence Gillis: How many are capable of deciding whether he is right or wrong? I think it is an offence to the committee. I think the minister would be well advised to accept their recommendations. They are very mediocre but at least they are a start. There is some evidence that the government is

courageous enough to make a start. Do not forget that it is not going to hurt. I am not afraid of it hurting the retailer at all, because he is hurt now. I have talked to retail merchants and they tell me that the best time they ever had in the history of this country was when there were price controls. They are in the position today where they are controlled in that their mark-up is set for them. They have to go along with that or no more goods are delivered to them. They are run out of business. You are not going to hurt the retailer. I do not think you will do any damage at all because I believe some regulation is necessary.
I had an experience that I brought to the attention of the health department. I am not going to mention the locality because I do not want to put people on the spot. Two prescriptions were sent to me. One was for a dozen capsules necessary for the health of a young boy. The druggist wanted $17.50 for the prescription, and he could not afford to pay it. In the other case the druggist wanted $11.25 for the prescription. These prescriptions were sent to me with the request that I check to see if these really were the correct prices. I checked with the health department and the answer I received was that they were out of line with general retail prices for this type of drug but that there was no authority in this country to fix prices. There is no one to say they cannot make that charge. However the department, who handle this drug themselves-I suppose they compounded these capsules-could supply the $17.50 prescription for around $3.25, and the $11.25 prescription could be supplied for $1.75.
Do you not think there is good reason for someone to take a look at that situation? The admission was that they had no power to do anything about it. That is profiteering; that is really taking people by the throat. I am not going to say in what part of the country this was, but I think you will find it is pretty prevalent throughout the land. If the government implemented these two recommendations I am sure the staff they have to handle this type of legislation is qualified, and I do not think anyone would be hurt except those who should be hurt. We provide laws for almost everything else in the public interest. There are laws covering our highways. Some people do not like them but the only people who do not are those who break them. There are customs laws and immigration laws, not to say anything about the income tax laws. We protect the public in these instances. We hire policemen. In certain municipalities we hire the mounted police to protect the general public against acts that are injurious to the country and the general public. But I can 94699-50J
Combines Legislation
think of no act of lawlessness that 'hurts as many people in as many ways as the offences that result from a lack of some supervision over the means of life and their distribution to the people of Canada. The health and general standards of living of the people are affected, and general demoralization sets in.
In my opinion the dangerous thing about it in this day and age is that the institution of parliament and the intention of the government to protect the people are brought into disrepute. The people get the idea that there is no use and, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) mentioned a while ago, agitations last for a certain length of time and then are forgotten. But this one cannot be forgotten. Every time you get up in the morning and come to your breakfast table you are reminded of it. If you happen to forget it, your wife will tell you about it. Every time you want shoes for your children you have another reminder. Every time your landlord tells you the rent is going up, when you are already paying twice as much as you can afford, you have another reminder. This is a continued story so far as the general public is concerned. Anyone who is thinking about maintaining the system of free enterprise, maintaining the status quo, is not being realistic. We are not living in that kind of a world now. The quicker we get around to that line of thinking, the better.
Apparently the government is going to set up this committee. This group has said what it believes should be done. We have moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne stating that we want price controls on essentials. I would say that included food, fuel and shelter. We want subsidies to make that system work, and we believe we should have an excess profits tax to assist in paying those subsidies. Churchill is applying it 100 per cent, and I am wondering where some of our friends in this house are going to find a party to the right. That is what we think should be done.
In the throne speech the government said, "We are going to bring down legislation based on the MacQuarrie committee's interim report". Now they have gone back on that. They say, "We are going to set up a committee", and the official opposition says it regrets that the government has not taken adequate steps. What are adequate steps? I should like to see that spelled out. The only adequate steps we could take at this time would be those based on our experience with all the committees we have had, which accomplished nothing except a further increase in prices. During the war our prices were away below those in the United States. Today our prices are above theirs.

Combines Legislation
To say that the United States experiment has not been a success is not the whole truth. Where would their price structure be today if they had not had these controls?
Without taking any more time, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) should very respectfully and gracefully ask for permission to withdraw this proposal, take it back to the cabinet and tell his advisers that, after listening to the debate in the house and upon more sober reflection, he is convinced that they should be ashamed to put this forward as a solution to the inflation in this country; that he believes they should take the MacQuarrie committee's report and implement those two recommendations, then follow them through to their logical conclusion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to follow the hon. member who has just spoken, because not only do I agree with some of the things he has said but I also had the privilege of serving with him in the army. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, and I may be wrong, anyone born in the province of Ontario in 1892 might have had the privilege of serving his country, and not sitting at home making a profit out of the situation which this legislation is trying to correct. Many of us from the province of British Columbia could have stayed home, as apparently some did in the province of Ontario and profiteered in the tobacco line. I am sorry that my learned colleague to whom I refer is not present, but I shall be glad to repeat it to him when he is.


Mr. Brooks:: Brave fellow.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) says "brave fellow". This man who did not have the courage to serve his country attacks a member who had the courage to do so, and if the hon. member wants to take me on I shall take him on any time.


Mr. Fulion:: Go and buy another new suit, then perhaps you will make a better speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Having the desire to serve my party, I came back to Ottawa and did not stay at Kamloops in an endeavour to get on the platform.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are just jealous, of
course.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member wants any more, I shall take him on, too. It is a great business. These people who object to this legislation say it is going to restrict the manufacturer. They clamour for price controls now, but they want the manufacturer to put on the price control and not the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I resent

personal attacks on me, but I am capable of giving them out when anyone who has not had the courage to serve his country but prefers to profiteer makes one on me.
I say that the cigarette and tobacco manufacturer is doing just about enough, and if some of my friends would like to say they are representing the tobacco cartel I should be glad to hear them. I defy any member on the opposite side to tell me that a retailer is not told at what price he must sell his cigarettes and cigars. But when we try to introduce some legislation in this connection, we are criticized. We are asked by a few friends from Ontario who know they will never be in power, and knowing there is a provincial election, to put on controls. They know they will never have the authority to do so, and they know they will never work in peacetime. At the same time they bow to this little cartel of manufacturers from their province. Those people from 1914 to 1918 took good care that they profiteered when others were defending their right to live. I resent any such attack as that from any individual who has not-and I am not permitted to use the language which I should like to use-the intestinal fortitude to fight for his country but who prefers to profiteer at the age of twenty-two.
While this legislation may not be perfect, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it demonstrates the desire of the government to bring about an effective control. It certainly demonstrates that we as a parliament cannot in peacetime put into effect controls in the best interests, as we see it, of the people of Canada. Certainly I believe this legislation shows that the manufacturers should not be allowed to put into effect at any time any control that we as a parliament cannot put into effect. If my hon. friend who profiteers behind the hidden wall would like to debate with me in his own riding-and I have never been in the province of Ontario in any provincial election and do not intend to go in-I should be delighted to be invited to meet him in his own riding at any time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He would be wasting his time.


Mr. Hees:: I wonder if the hon. member for Fraser Valley would permit a question. Tonight we have heard a dissertation on courage. First of all, did he tell the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) that he was going to attack him in the house just now, so that he would have the opportunity of being here and defending himself?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: To my junior friend may I say that I sent over a note to a senior and

gallant member of his party-who was a member long before the hon. member ever heard of his party-to tell him what I was going to say. I have repeated it, and I shall be glad to say anything that I have said at any time, in his presence, any place.


George Harris Hees: I should like to remark that I think the courageous thing is to make sure the hon. member concerned himself hears personally that he is going to be attacked, and to make sure he knows, so he can be present in the house at the time the attack is made. That is my idea of parliamentary courage.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My friend never gave any indication that he was going to attack me personally; but I gave him a note.


An hon. Member:: He did not attack you.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member did not know you were going to attack him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This whole discussion is out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, in the multiplicity of words to which we have listened in the last day or two I think the simple issue of what we are discussing has been lost to sight. As a matter of fact, the government in the speech from the throne announced that in view of the recommendations in the Mac-Q.uarrie report it was going to bring in certain legislation; and the Prime Minister referred to that legislation in no uncertain terms when he spoke in the house on October 15. As reported at page 41 of Hansard he said:
. . . and again I can say that as regards immediate additional measures to curb inflation, while others may develop, the only one we are prepared to submit at this time is the one that will arise out of this report of the combines committee with respect to resale prices.
Then he added:
I do not think that is going to have a very substantial effect on the index of the cost of living.
There was thus a distinct statement in the speech from the throne, and later a deliberate statement on the part of the Prime Minister, that this legislation was to be introduced in order that we might see what the government proposed to do with regard to inflation. Then something happened, and we find that this matter is to be referred to another committee. May I say that in my sixteen years in this House of Commons I have seen many questions raised as to the high prices of various commodities. This evening I sent up to my office to get the Journals of the house for April, 1937, just to refresh my memory with respect to the report of the
Combines Legislation
committee on the high prices of farm implements and the recommendations that were made at that time. They were in part as follows:
That the profits to the farm implement companies on the sale of replacement parts is excessive and the price of these to the consumer should be materially reduced.
That the increases announced by the companies in January, 1936, were not justified by an increase in manufacturing or distribution costs or by the financial results of the companies in so far as these were affected by the price level of farm implements.
That over the period 1891 to 1933 retail prices of farm implements have been maintained at too high a level as shown by the financial returns to the companies engaged in the industry, during that period.
This quotation may be found at page 500 of the Journals of 1937. I remember the committee reported that implement prices were maintained over a long period of time. I have a vivid recollection-as I am sure some of those have who were in the house at that time and who served on that committee with me-of the president of the largest manufacturer of farm implements coming before that committee; and when he was asked if he would supply associations of farmers organized in co-operatives to distribute his implements he said no, because he said they would not permit any form of price cutting, as he called it; and he argued that the patronage dividend was a price cut on the sale of farm implements.
Immediately this report was introduced into the house, in 1937, or within a week or ten days, these same manufacturers again increased the already high price of farm implements. I just single out that one example because this is the kind of thing that has been going on in our country ever since I can remember. What has been said about monopolistic practices is indeed perfectly true. I know that the legislation which was promised in the speech from the throne, if it had been put into effect, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has admitted, would have little influence on the cost of living. The real point is this. As soon as this legislation was foreshadowed, the manufacturing interests in this country and the chambers of commerce began to demand their right to maintain a price control system of their own. They are the same people that have opposed across the country, ever since 1945 at least, any form of price control by this parliament of Canada. When price controls were introduced and maintained in this country by parliament, they were introduced and maintained in a proper democratic manner, with due process of law, with the right to appeal to a court of law, if aggrieved; it was price control under the control of parliament and under the law. The MacQuarrie

Combines Legislation
report points out, as to resale price maintenance:
It represents a real and undesirable restriction on competition by private agreement or "law" and its general tendency is to discourage economic efficiency.
There we have the statement made by this very able committee-which was headed by a judge and upon which were able economists assisting him-that an examination of this problem shows that there was in this country a private code of law prohibiting certain people from doing what they might otherwise do, without any appeal to any court, and that they were subject to discipline according to this private code of law.
I want to say in the words of the report- perhaps I had better quote it:
Resale price maintenance, to be effective, requires some method of enforcement. If a manufacturer merely indicates a resale price but makes no provision and takes no step to enforce it, then he has no real control over his distributors. However, when measures of enforcement are involved, resale price maintenance establishes a private system of law allowing no appeal to the courts of justice . . .
It seems to me that is the whole issue in connection with the proposal foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, that this parliament was going to legislate to prevent the maintenance of a private system of law in this country; but the moment the government proposes this step to the House of Commons the same people who have been opposing the re-establishment of a public system of law in relation to certain prices demanded that they be allowed to continue a private system of law in relation to some prices. That is the issue. It is a very simple one. During the last twenty years committee after committee has sat. The commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act has made inquiry after inquiry, and the evidence is clearly before us. Yet once again it is proposed to refer this matter to a committee for further investigation.
When we do legislate against resale price maintenance I believe the law should be strengthened in another particular, too. For I am equally afraid of the monopolies in the distributive field that are growing up in our country which may take advantage of what is called the "loss leader." That is also an unfair trade practice that should be dealt with according to the law equally with an unfair trade practice in relation to retail price maintenance mainly for the benefit, perhaps, of the manufacturer. Indeed, the Mac-Quarrie report is not silent on that point, though it does not make any definite recommendation. In that regard it says this:
Resale price maintenance, by prohibiting any normal price reduction, affords an effective protection against "loss-leaders" in the field of price-maintained goods. However, the committee does
CMr. Coldwell.l
not think that to withdraw from the retailer the right to make any price reduction is a satisfactory way of preventing unfair and excessive pricecutting. We are of the opinion that more direct and desirable weapons can be found to curb "loss-leaders."
I thoroughly agree with that. If we are to have legislation I think it should cut both ways. I think we should prevent the powerful organization that advertises loss leaders from unfair trade practices in that field as well as in the other. I know perfectly well that in regard to some staple products that happens. I remember some years ago being shown a product advertised in a certain catalogue in this country for 89 cents, and the merchant who was selling the same article showed me quite conclusively that he was losing money when he was selling it for $1. But the 89 cent loss leader drew to that mail order house a very large amount of business in other respects. I think that is as much an offence on the one hand as resale price maintenance is on the other. If this goes to a committee and the legislation is enlarged in any respect, consideration should be given to that particular phase of retail merchandising, because I think none of us wants to play into the hands of powerful distributive monopolies in this country.
I hold the view that quite frequently the chain organization across this country is no gain in reality to the community, because the small retail merchant who has maintained our churches, community halls and schools is eliminated and often replaced by a low-paid local manager. I do not think we want to encourage that kind of exploiting monopoly either. I do think that the government has lacked courage completely in regard to this particular matter. They made up their minds. It was stated in the speech from the throne that they were going to introduce legislation in connection with resale price maintenance. Then all of a sudden they tell us they are going to appoint another committee to go into the only proposal that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had to offer this country at the present time to do anything with regard to monopolies, although even he did not believe it was going to have any material effect on inflation.
The country is just about fed up with high prices. The cost of living index is at 190-4. Bear in mind that up to the present time the new increases in rent which began on October I in Ontario and in some other provinces have not yet figured in the price index, and will not figure in it until January 1. When the rent increases on October 1 are estimated in the price index on January 1, I should be very surprised indeed if my prediction, made

four or five months ago, does not materialize, and the index reach 200 when the new rentals are included.
I say to the government they lack courage to tackle this problem; they lack a policy to tackle this problem, and for some reason or other they have gone into full retreat in the face of certainly not the masses of the Canadian people, but it seems to me in the face of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers Association. We have always said that the old parties, relying as they do so largely for certain very necessary support from some of these great organizations, legislate from time to time not so much in the interests of the people as in the interests of these organizations. No doubt the minister will deny that statement and' say it is not correct; but at least what has happened lends colour to that charge. It lends colour to the correctness of that statement, and I say that, to put it as mildly as I can and not emphasizing what I have just said, the government shows an entire lack of courage in failing to go on with the legislation which it intended to go on with, and in referring once again matters that have been investigated by parliamentary and other committees, over a period of more than twenty years to my knowledge, to still another committee. I want to make the strongest possible protest against this way of handling the country's business.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This has really been an excellent debate; and if I have any complaints at all it is that the preceding speakers have left me not much room for oratory. Perhaps that is for the best, because the position the government has taken in this matter is now being supported by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and I have no doubt by many other hon. members of the opposition. Perhaps I had better be careful in what I say or I may talk ourselves out of a lot of support which we now have as I rise to my feet. However, I think I should come right to the point at issue here, which is the setting up of this committee for the purpose of considering the resolution which is now before the house. That has been represented by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat as a lack of courage, a retreat and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, what are the plain facts of this matter? Well, more than a year ago this government created the MacQuarrie
Combines Legislation
committee as an advisory body to advise us over the whole field of combines investigation legislation. I think 1 am right in saying that in the step we took at that time we had the support-if not the outright support at least not the opposition'-of virtually all hon. members of all the parties in this house.
For reasons which have been explained in some detail, the main report of the committee was delayed, but we had reason to know that it had done a lot of work and pretty largely had completed its work upon resale price maintenance. We requested them to let us have an interim report upon that subject. The report came to hand. The government considered it. We made it perfectly clear in the speech from the throne, and in the speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the address in reply, and in a radio broadcast of my own over a coast-to-coast hook-up, that we accepted this report and were prepared to act upon it.
So up to that time no one could accuse us of a lack of consistency or a lack of courage. At that time we received representations- not from the chamber of commerce, because our decision was made before the chamber of commerce reached its decision in this matter -but, speaking for myself, from the executive of the pharmaceutical association of Ontario, the executive of the pharmaceutical association of Canada and from the executive of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. Then I received large numbers of letters- which I am sure most other members of the house also received-from a host of mostly small independent retailers all across Canada. What did these gentlemen say? I do not suppose I really need to relate what they said, because most of the members are familiar with their representations.
It has been suggested that this was the result of an organized effort on the part of certain trade associations. There may be some truth in this; but I know from my own personal knowledge that quite a substantial number of letters which I received came from people who by no stretch of the imagination could be regarded as wealthy merchants or wealthy manufacturers, but just small and independent retailers whom I knew personally and had known for many years. One of them was a former member of the Manitoba legislature, Mr. Grant, from Souris, Manitoba. These men whom I knew stated to me in their letters that they felt that a changeover of this practice, under which they had operated for some decades, was going to very seriously affect their own business, and the business around them; and they felt-this was quite apparent in the

Combines Legislation
language they used-this was a new proposition so far as they were concerned. They felt that it was most unfair to them and that it should not be proceeded with until they had an opportunity through their representatives to be heard before the bar of public opinion.
These letters coming in from those sources, from people who had no axe to grind other than to secuie a fair deal for themselves, I must say impressed me very much indeed, as I am sure they impressed other members in the house. I entirely agreed with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) when he said, in a speech which I am sure any Liberal member in the house could have made-indeed, when I heard it I thought the voice was the voice of Jacob but the hand was the hand of Esau-that what was involved here was whether or not we as a parliament were going to give a fair hearing to these people whose businesses were going to be affected by our making a change from what had prevailed in their business for many years.
I make no apology for any part I have played in this. I think that when parliament is contemplating a change of this nature, it will work much better and be much more enforceable if all the people concerned in it, particularly those people who will be most deeply affected, have the feeling that they have been treated fairly in the matter all the way through.
For that reason we decided to accede to this request and to suggest something with which I think everyone in the house will agree; that if there is any lobbying to be done in the matter it is much better that it should be done out in the open before a parliamentary committee, with members of the public and the press of Canada present, than that it should be done in alcoves with cabinet ministers or members supporting the government.
My hon. friend has said that we were lacking in courage. Well I say to them it took a certain amount of courage to take that position. And when we took it we stated it in this house, in a way which is most unvarnished, clear and frank. I will not repeat it, because all members will recall it. Then, lest there should be any doubt that the step we took represented any backing away from what we had said was our policy as set out in the speech from the throne-and I do not
think there could be any doubt about that point-but lest there should be any doubt, I said this:
It is the hope and the expectation of the government that this joint parliamentary committee will get its work under way at the earliest possible moment, and will proceed with sufficient dispatch to enable the appropriate legislation it is set up to consider to be dealt with by parliament before the end of this session, as forecast in the speech from the throne.
I ask any reasonable man how those members who have attacked our position could read into language as plain, as unvarnished and as clear as that any suggestion that we are backing away from the position we took. I say we are not backing away; and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and his party, as they have already announced, will have the privilege of supporting us in this action we have taken, to show that they agree with what we have done. For my part I think the thing for us to do now-and perhaps it is just as well that I have not been allowed to speak too long-is to bring this to a vote, and get on with the job before the committee.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to correct one statement that was made. The opposition has made it perfectly clear that it does not agree with the procedure. But it has made it clear also that this last minute decision of the government will at least give a superficial inquiry into the matter, and that since we cannot get a wider inquiry we will of course accept this.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will resume the debate on the address. This time I hope we will really get a vote on the amendment to the amendment.
At ten o'clock p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Wednesday, November 7, 1951